Question about vinyl rips.
Reply #34 – 2014-04-02 11:41:35
To reply to the original question: depending on where you live, I'd say there is a 90% chance it's not legal, but it differs per country.I'm not sure why death should come in to it. I think 50 years for identifiable artistic input (composing, playing, singing etc) and 25 years for identifiable technical input (remastering, restoring etc - currently generally uncopyrightable, but it doesn't stop people trying) from the date of creation would be more than enough. Let's look at it from the other way: why limit it at all? Well, from a practical point of view, at some point it no longer possible to maintain. But still: someone made something. It has been released to the public. Because works like these (books, music, video other forms of art) are easy to copy, there is a certain protection granted by the law. Why is this protection granted limited at all? So my question: why do you think 50/25 years is enough? Not to be rude or to be taken personal, but the only reason I see people giving for limiting copyright is 'selfish', like "so I can have it for free" or more disguised like "so some artist can use it for free to create a derivative work". Is there any fundamental reason why copyright should be limited to a certain timespan, aside from whether it is possible to maintain such rules and granted there are some fair use policies like being able to copy a rightfully obtained copy for personal use? It is very different from patents for example, because copyright protects creative expressions, while patents protects tools. A tool is universal, such a creative expression is not. Sure, I'd like to see a much shorter copyright term so I download old recordings for free, or make recordings of works by certain composers without having to worry whether copyright has already expired in Mexico or something. But that's all quite selfish. I can clearly see the reason for copyright protection, I cannot see the reason to limit the term.edit: to differentiate copyright and patents further, think of what a patent would do in music. For example, I can make a piece of music in a 5-beat measure.(5-beat measures give a sense of doom or eeriness) That piece of music is protected, if you make something with exactly the same notes in that 5-beat pattern, you're violating my copyright. Now, if I'd patent 5-beat measure, stating that I found that the human psyche reacts to 5-beat measures with an emotion of fear, which is useful for film soundtracks, you can't use a 5-beat measure in your music without my permission. That's the difference: copyright protects a certain expression or performance, while patents protect the tools to do these things.