The Constitution states for a limited time. That could be interpreted from 1 day to the lifetime of the artist. I assume that they intended to to permit the artist/creator the ability to profit from his or her work. Would Free Market Capitalists argue for no protection under the law? Possibly. But that would suck all of the incentive out of producing new music. The market would favor those that steal other artist's work and are better able to market it. Promoters win. Artists lose. Equal Protection Clause?
Today, the bigger issue is globalization and the black market. New music and movies are pirated before distribution by those outside their country's jurisdiction.
From: Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Britain reverses position on copyright extension
I don't know who you are, but this does not seem to be your field.?
Paul D wrote:?
> Copyright laws are designed to allow the Creator to financially benefit > from their work. ?
FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME.?
> I'm not sure how you can ethically separate a songwriter > from his royalties for any length of time. ?
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA YOU DO IT BY READING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.*?
"SECTION EIGHT - Powers of Congress*?
"The Congress shall have Power . . .?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times?
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"?
A REAL understanding of this clause of The Constitution shows that it was understood by our founding fathers -- many of whom were writers and inventors -- that unless "the exclusive Right" was "for limited Times", society and the country will not truly progress and benefit. It was a long established principle in law that the time period of Public Domain was MORE IMPORTANT than the time period of copyright or patent. The works are created FOR the PUBLIC DOMAIN, but prior to giving it to the public, the creator will benefit. That time period is the BAIT to get things to be created. But the eventual path of ALL creations were meant for the Public Domain. Industry money and lobbys have been able to trick our recent congress to misunderstanding these longstanding legal and social concepts.?
> Its like finding a gold mine > and only benefitting for 7 years; after which you turn it over for "public > use". You found the gold. You keep it. Period.?
BALONEY. Haven't you ever heard of Eminent Domain??? It is in the Fifth Amendment * "Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified <http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR> 12/15/1791.*?
" . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."?
This means that if there IS "just compensation", private property CAN be taken for public use. It happens all the time. ?
"The power of the federal or state government to take private property for a public purpose, even if the property owner objects. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the government to take private property if the taking is for a public use and the owner is "justly compensated" (usually, paid fair market value) for his or her loss. A public use is virtually anything that is sanctioned by a federal or state legislative body, but such uses may include roads, parks, reservoirs, schools, hospitals or other public buildings. Sometimes called condemnation, taking or expropriation."?
> Royalty fees are trivial. Like 10 cents per sale on a song.?
> http://moneywisdom-gold.blogspot.com >?
> It is not the cost that is at issue, it is the restriction of use. SONGS cannot be restricted from use by any other person or company -- there is compulsary use written into the law. If I want to record your song, you MUST let me. But recordings are not included. If a company wishes to restrict any use of a recording EVEN BY THE CREATOR, they can restrict the use. Except by special contract, PERFORMERS DO NOT OWN THEIR RECORDINGS. ?
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]