|
31 Jul 99 - 03:35 PM (#101165) Subject: Copyright vs. patents From: Henrik W. Recently there were a few threads on the Mudcat about music copyright and its legal implications etc. In my work as an engineer I have sometimes had to work with patents of different kinds. An interesting thought did spring to mind: What if the principles behind patent law were applied to copyright of for instance music? Patents were introduced in order to encourage people to publish details of their inventions - the incentive being that the invention would be protected for a certain period. Some interesting aspects of the way patents work are: 1. Only inventions which are not publicly known can be patented - e.g. if you publish an article describing your invention then you cannot afterwards apply for a patent - you have to do it the other way around. 2. You have to pay to keep the patent valid - and the price will rise with time, so in most cases companies will only keep up a patent for 5-7 years unless the patent is crucial to their business. 3. The maximum patent life is of the order of 10 years - much shorter than the time a musical work is protected by copyright. 4. Perhaps most interesting: A patent usually only protects you right to use an invention for commercial purposes. If I invent a machine that writes folk songs and get this patented, anyone can - legally - build one, as long as they do not use it for commercial purposes. Wouldn't it be nice if the same principle was applied to music? Cheers Henrik
|
|
01 Aug 99 - 01:02 PM (#101324) Subject: RE: Copyright vs. patents From: Doctor John Henrik, Yes. The kind of things you describe would certainly stop someone copywriting a traditional song which happens from time to time and can't be right. I didn't realize that you had to pay to keep a patent valid but not a copyright: that would stop the dog in a manger effect which occurs from time to time. Dr John |
|
01 Aug 99 - 07:39 PM (#101395) Subject: RE: Copyright vs. patents From: T in Oklahoma Henrik I heard that the duration of patent in the US was recently raised from 17 years from when the patent issues to either 17 years from when the patent issues or 20 years from when the patent is applied for (whichever is longer? whichever is shorter ? Does one term always trump the other if the patent issues ? I don't know.) As it happens, the some commentators claim to find a "tendency to require a somewhat greater degree of originality in order to accord copyright in a musical arrangement". Nimmer on Copyright 2.05[C],2-57 (2nd Edition, 1978). |
|
01 Aug 99 - 10:56 PM (#101421) Subject: RE: Copyright vs. patents From: Les B Dr. John - what is the "dog in the manger" effect ? |
|
02 Aug 99 - 03:16 AM (#101466) Subject: RE: Copyright vs. patents From: Doctor John Les, By that I mean a company or an individual who holds recordings which many of us would like to hear or have but for reasons unknown will neither issue them, broadcast them or sell them even if you're prepared to well over the odds fpr a copy. Sometimes songs are subject to copyright and have never been recorded and nobody can because of this effect. It seems to be to nobody's advantage at all. This kind of thing was mentioned on the Nic Jones thread a while ago. Dr John |