3 ms·
From the article: "I doubt anyone would argue that song composition is a lesser art or any less deserving of full royalties than other arts." Note that this vi
by bediger 15y ago
From the article: "I doubt anyone would argue that song composition is a lesser art or any less deserving of full royalties than other arts."
Note that this viewpoint isn't historical: http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/papers/art31/ http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/papers/art31/ Copyright wasn't originally granted even to sheet music, if I read the paper correctly. In the USA, musical recordings weren't covered by Federal copyright until 1972, but rather were covered under state copyright. Older music still is.
Copyright on music is indeed debateable, and has been as long as copyright has existed as a legal concept.
- mukyu 15y agoPre-1972 sound recordings is actually an issue currently being debated by the Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/ http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/
- mecredis 15y agoGood catch. I definitely meant it in the sense that I doubt anyone would currently argue such a thing. But the same historical twist applies to photography, albeit a century earlier -- whether copyright should be extened to photographs was a hotly debated issue in the courts. It wasn't until 1865 that copyright was extended to photos, almost 100 years after copyright itself was instantiated. More details: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22f_1862%22 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/aus...