Intellectual property

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 98 - 01:36 PM

Congratulations to this thread on reaching it's 100th contribution. It didn't look like making it at one point.

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: Pete M
Date: 06 Oct 98 - 05:35 PM

Bert, I was interested in your previous? profession because that is where I think the views I expressed and your response come to cross purposes. I too earn my living by "intellectual ability" and yes, I certainly expect to be paid for it. What I do not expect is to be continued to be paid for a design or system if it is used again.

It seems to me artistic effort, as noted above, derives most of its monetary value as opposed to artistic merit from the artist. With singing, the greatest songwriter who ever lived was/is anon, and the fact that someone well known records a song adds nothing to it, but if people buy a CD or go to a concert, the vast majority do so for the singer regardless of the songs.

I may be wrong, I'm certainly biased, but the number of "folk" songs that are in common usage and can be traced to a current author is a minute proportion of the canon. I agree that we all want common sense to be the determining factor, but given legislation currently in place, do we really want to chance losing the legal right to perform one of Anon's works because XYZ has recorded a version of it, to safeguard income for those who write "folk", as opposed to "pop" songs which are intended to be recorded by someone else?

Pete M

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: Jerry Friedman
Date: 06 Oct 98 - 06:13 PM

Nobody wants to lose the legal right to perform anonymous songs. And nobody has to, IF the performer is prepared to fight and win a legal battle.

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: gargoyle
Date: 06 Oct 98 - 10:57 PM

So Bert

What are views on USF?

As an "investment."

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: Ewan McV
Date: 07 Oct 98 - 04:43 AM

One point I've made earlier is that the creators of 'folk songs'are often more easily identified that you'd think, and if you look in the right places they are sometimes clearly identified. We seem to want to take some songs into mass ownership, and instinctively suppress the creator's name. Pete M, if your design or system is copied and used by someone other than the person who paid you for your work, and that other person keeps the design fee, and may even claim to have been the designer, what is your position? Why should the maker of a song not be paid, when the designer of a soup can gets a fee every time a new can is made? When a song is sung it is in a sense remade, and often amended from the maker's intentions. The maker cannot claim all of all versions, but the man who invented the biro pen (called Biro I suspect) probably gets something every time his method is applied to a new kind of pen along the same principles. I make most of my money from other sources than songwriting. People fail to pay me for use of my songs all the time. They ignore the laws of the land on this. I don't mind because I'm used to it, and the people who do not pay are either issuing their own recordings (for which they insist on cash money, by the way) or record company sharks. But if you feel my intellectual property should be yours as well in common ownership, you won't mind if I borrow your car some time without telling you, now will you? Common wealth is common wealth.

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: Bert
Date: 07 Oct 98 - 02:14 PM

Pete M,
The company I work for makes software and they expect to be paid for every copy. That's the only way they can afford to keep in business and keep a team of developers employed on improving to product.

I agree with you that we don't want to lose the right to perform traditional works.
As for writing 'folk' songs there ARE Mudcateers who will argue that you can't, but that's a different issue. My songs have a sort of country/folk style.

Gargoyle, I hate to show my ignorance but what is USF?

Ewan McV,

Sorry to hear that people are ripping you off. Why don't you start another thread and let us know who these thieves are. I like your last sentence.

So, My songs are, by law, my property. What I am trying to establish is some way that the songwriters of Mudcat (Songwriteers?) can agree upon to allow each other reasonable use of our songs.

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: sian, west wales
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:35 AM

Weird. I honestly thought I'd just posted to this thread about an hour ago but ... guess not. Won't blame the technology; more likely to be an age-related brain fart. So:

It is PURE coincidence that I'm reviving this on its 9th birthday, but I thought I should pass on something just received from an MU member:


"GRASSROOTS update

"You will see in the newsletter an article entitled "Research On The Impact Of Intellectual Property On Music" which refers to a survey being undertaken by the School of Law at Liverpool University. If you could take a few minutes to complete the on line questionnaire it would be most appreciated. Please note that the website address in the newsletter is slightly wrong and the correct address is printed below.

You can access the document at: www.survey.ljmu.ac.uk/ipmusic "

Knock yourselves out,

sian, west wales

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:57 AM

Hi Sian

I just tried to post that link on this thread: Blogging and more

but it's 404. I've asked MU for help

Tom

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: sian, west wales
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:33 AM

Well, that is interesting. OK - here's just the plain ol' plain ol': www.survey.ljmu.ac.uk/ipmusic Maybe it didn't like the blue-clicky for some reason.

sian

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:37 AM

Ah yes, it was the blicky in your case. In mine in was the misprint in Grassroots - just corrected by Paul (I've slipped off the email list that I assume you did recieve).

Sould be an ell, not a one, as printed

t

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: PMB
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:45 AM

The real clicky

Subject: RE: Intellectual property
From: sian, west wales
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:48 AM

bingo.

sian