Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple Sued by Estate of 'Over the Rainbow' Composer for Alleged Piracy

bollman

macrumors 6502
Sep 25, 2001
357
503
Lund, Sweden
LOL.

Because art belongs to society. Revenue belongs to individuals.

Exact works of music that should be public domain. Ehhh, fine. Unless it's a cover. In which case it's new art.

Art doesn't belong to the artist.

Oh, really?
So, if I paint a really nice picture that I hang on my wall, when I die you think that my son should not inherit it? That it should "belong to society"? So, whoever wants it should come and get it, for free, like? No? That would be stealing, wouldn't it? Or that it should automatically be transferred to a museum for all to see? To me that sounds awfully lot like communism.
My son can sell it, for money, if he so decides, or keep it away from "society" forever, if it's his choosing.
Why should it be any different for music? Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to inherit music, or more specific rights to?

Painters can let relatives inherit his or hers painting and sell for profit. Why shouldn't composer be allowed to do the same?

You see, it's a lot easier to get "the same experience" from a copy of a recording than from a copy of a painting. If you've ever visited an art museum, you know what I'm talking about. So, paintings/art sell for obscene amounts of money since people want "the real experience" (and of course the possible rise in value), but for composers it's not the same thing, they need the very tiny revenue to trickle in to make their "fortune" out of their hard work.

I can tell you that if your idea ever got traction, "14 years of copyright", there would be no radio stations playing anything newer than 14 years ago, and the music industry would instantly come to a grinding halt as noone would ever write a song again, since you can't make a living out of it.
 
Comment

Zoboomafoo

macrumors 6502
May 22, 2002
403
653
So until the creator dies? Because that is when he stops to have any gain/profit from his work.
Why would somebody pay my son, grandson or great-grandson for the work I did? In that case I’m going to make super-nice furniture and when the first buyer is going to sell, he has to pay me or my estate royalties...

Copyright laws have not been made to protect indefinitely, but to protect a fair income for authors and creators.
Same with patents. Take a look at what is happening in what is patent fraud IMHO in medication. Instead of a pill you make a nose-spray and 30 sprays will cost €250.. (fentanil). And in this day and age of digital next-to-nothing-cheap digital copies of music and books copyrights are more relevant then ever.
But only for a reasonable limited amount of time (e.g. the moment of death for an author or 35 years after creation for a company) would be fair to be give a creator the chance to make a profit. But after that it is either not valuable if it hasn’t made money yet, or it should have been profitable enough.

Because all artists stop producing well before they die right? Life works out perfectly like that.

Btw, have you read the girl with the dragon tattoo? I was gonna start last night but I got tickets to Rent instead.

Btw, you’re insane. :)
 
Comment

555gallardo

macrumors regular
Jan 16, 2016
180
1,411
Slovakia
Uhm, they're playing "Over the rainbow" literally dozens of times every single day, in pretty much every european or american coountry. And it took him 24 years to find out?
[doublepost=1558648557][/doublepost]


According to the BBC, part of the dispute stem from the differences in copyright law between the US and Europe. In the US, copyright for sound recordings made after 1923 and before 1972 is generally 95 years. But in the UK and Europe, copyright expires after 70 years, after which sound recordings enter the public domain.

The copyright in Europe expires 70 years after the composer's death.
 
Comment

4jasontv

macrumors 68040
Jul 31, 2011
3,422
3,540
I’m really just going to step out here because you just have a different set of beliefs. But this statement above is pretty subjective. Or absurd. Really both. We’re in a world where content of all sorts is more abundant, more accessible than ever. And it’s pretty exceptional quality to boot. So. Idk. Go rain on some other parade

Abundance of content is irrelevant if someone alive during its creation can not use it in their own lifetime.

So you believe that no-one has ownership of their work and a right to, be it a single piece of work or multiple? You're so deluded.

Of course they do, and while 14 years might be excessive it allows for the art to have some time to grow a following.

I'm confused, when someone dies, should all of their savings, wealth, belongings be taken from their family?

There is a big difference between physical items and concepts. A CD with a song on it is a physical thing. The song however is not.

Of course they are. That's why we have patents. You don't have to have anything physically made, but have an idea, and you're protected.

I am not disagreeing that we shouldn't offer protection. The issue is the length of time it is protected. After a short period the content should be owned by the people.

Just explain your logic here. Works of art ... music, tv, etc represent the culmination of a profound amount of work from a number of people with no real guarantees that all of their studying, practice, determination will amount to anything more than a wedding singer position or a sweet resume of restaurant service. So explain to me why you feel entitled to use their hard work at all without their permission, let alone within some random period of time.

Because "their hard work is the culmination of a number of people". They added to culture. They didn't create it.

Oh, really?
So, if I paint a really nice picture that I hang on my wall, when I die you think that my son should not inherit it?
No, and that's not the same at all. No one is saying you lose physical items, what they are saying is that people should be allowed to copy it for themselves and use it to create new art. You don't lose the original.

That it should "belong to society"? So, whoever wants it should come and get it, for free, like? No? That would be stealing, wouldn't it?

No, because you don't lose your copy.

Or that it should automatically be transferred to a museum for all to see? To me that sounds awfully lot like communism.

Again, no because you don't lose your original. Others gain the ability to make their own copy.

My son can sell it, for money, if he so decides, or keep it away from "society" forever, if it's his choosing.

YES! But people could opt to buy a copy from someone else. The value of your son's painting comes from who painted it, not from what it is a paining of.

Why should it be any different for music? Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to inherit music, or more specific rights to?

Because the rights were granted for a limited time. An exclusive to the creator. Unless the kid was involved they have to rights over it.

Painters can let relatives inherit his or hers painting and sell for profit. Why shouldn't composer be allowed to do the same?

They still can! The only thing they shouldn't be allowed to do is stop others from painting the same thing.

You see, it's a lot easier to get "the same experience" from a copy of a recording than from a copy of a painting. If you've ever visited an art museum, you know what I'm talking about. So, paintings/art sell for obscene amounts of money since people want "the real experience" (and of course the possible rise in value), but for composers it's not the same thing, they need the very tiny revenue to trickle in to make their "fortune" out of their hard work.

And they can! What they shouldn't be allowed to do is live off of one song they sell over and over for multiple generations. 14 years is well beyond the lifespan of most music. After that it's value comes not from the artist but from the people supporting the song.

I can tell you that if your idea ever got traction, "14 years of copyright", there would be no radio stations playing anything newer than 14 years ago, and the music industry would instantly come to a grinding halt as noone would ever write a song again, since you can't make a living out of it.

Radio stations are ads for music, but there is no reason they can't play older music. The only difference is that no one would pay Clear Channel to play the older stuff. Maybe they would go under and we would return to a world of independent stations that played a variety of music.

People are still flipping burgers, so I think musicians would still be able to make a living from it. They might not be able to crash their sports car for the lolz, but they would be able to feed their kids.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.