Canadian Pirates Sell Spurious Songs — In 1897 177
Reservoir Hill writes "The NYTimes reported in their June 13, 1897 edition that 'Canadian pirates' were flooding the country with spurious editions of the latest copyrighted popular songs. 'They use the mails to reach purchasers, so members of the American Music Publishers Association assert, and as a result the legitimate music publishing business of the United States has fallen off 50 per cent in the past twelve months' while the pirates published 5,000,000 copies of songs in just one month. The Times added that pirates were publishing sheet music at 2 cents to 5 cents per copy although the original compositions sold for 20 to 40 cents per copy. But 'American publishers had held a conference' and a 'committee had been appointed to fight the pirates' by getting the 'Post Office authorities to stop such mail matter because it infringes the copyright law.' Interestingly enough the pirates of 1897 worked in league with Canadian newspapers that published lists of songs to be sold, with a post office box address belonging to the newspaper itself. Half the money went to pay the newspapers' advertising while the other half went to the pirates who sent the music by mail." The AMPA never dreamed of suing their customers, though.
where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Did these "evil pirates" kill the music industry, as was proclaimed they would?
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Funny)
"The more things change, the more they stay the same"
Lyrics from Circumstances from Rush's Hemisphere album.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Rush is Canadian, so naturally they steal music. Haven't you been paying attention to what the mafiaa is telling you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Impress your significant other: it's pronounced something like "ploo sah shanj, ploo say la mem showj."
4 years of high school French -- and finally, 20 years later, I get to put it to some use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably has something to do with the fact that I sucked/suck at it.
In my defense, I stated clearly that it was pronounced "something like" what I wrote. What you wrote is something like what I wrote.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you sure it was Sam Clemens or the look alike Mark Twain? Yes, identity theft is a problem too. Seems like everyone is ripping everyone off.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The phrase also frequently appeared in the newspapers within the game Simcity 2000.
citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your post triggered a thought. Content owners respect IP? OK:
We designate the public domain as a legal entity with IP rights. Someone writes a song, they must pay for each element of it which can be identified as something in the public domain. Each word (we'll let them slide on letters), each common phrase such as you have noted above that they wish to incorporate into their work, etc.
Same for films. Thy sky appears in your film or 43 out of 129 minutes. The licensing fee for use of the sky in a film is $100 per second or ,0001% of the film's reveneue, whichever is less. Similar terms for everything else.
All proceeds go to a fund to lobby for shorter, more reasonable copyright.
After all, these people are stealing the public domain's IP without any compensation to the public!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I understand. It's just if they are going to attempt to eliminate the public domain, I propose we arm it with the capability of self-defense.
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get it. A person creates something, somebody else through very little effort on their part makes money off that work.
How is that right?
I don't condone the **IA's actions, or record industry contracts, I just don't see why people think it's OK to "get free stuff"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised you were marked down as Troll. Don't expect to have a meaningful discussion on this on Slashdot, because a lot of the people here have lost their sense of morality on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Implying things that nobody said (that it would be ok to actually make money off of copying stuff of others) is no part of a meaningful discussion, but either a strong misunderstanding, or just a **AA-worthy troll. So if it's moderated partially troll, and partially offtopic, it's moderated correctly.
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
that isn't right. you know what else isn't right ? ridiculous copyright terms of 95 or whatwasit years after author's death. ridiculous claims that users can't make a copy for their own, private use of purchased works. ridiculous patent claims.
none of these helps to either advance arts or science. none of these helps to improve artist image.
i recently saw a link to a speach, done in 1841.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_(Macaulay) [wikisource.org].
"Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living"
that's quite correct, don't you agree ? so if artists have decided to screw everybody else with unreasonable claims (or maybe simply allowed somebody else to do that) - well, screw the artists. maybe it would be healthy to let them feel the pain of no copyright, so that unreasonability of a copyright standing for a hundred of years after they are friggin dead kicks in.
copyright isn't a basic right like right to own a physical unit. it's a privilege, put forth and allowed to be enjoyed with a single stated goal - to advance public good. it has been abused for a hundred years and made in the absolute opposite what was the stated goal. if you see such masses of people considering it unreasonable, maybe, just maybe you are wrong.
ps. it's also quite telling that wikipedia page has the following at the bottom... "This work published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago."
ps2. personally, i do not support complete abolishment of copyright. i believe the pirateparty program of 5 years and no restrictions on personal use is very, very reasonable. i would even support a slightly extended period of 14 years, which i have seen as an optimal lenght, coming out from some studies.
Re: (Score:2)
It is your failure to imply this. Because nobody here said this would be right.
If someone is making money off it, I think everybody here agrees that it is wrong.
What isn't wrong, is making copies for people that would not (be able to) buy it anyway, and not expecting anything in return. /. does not get what digital data or a copy of such data is.
Why do I always have to mention the difference between real goods and digital data even here on Slashdot? I mean I seems as if half of
I also noticed that a big part
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I think there's broad agreement across society that people have some form of ownership of original ideas, but you can't really do anything to make it difficult to copy published ideas - it's so easy to do.
Either society should find it acceptable to usurp the creative endeavours of others or accept that preventing that requires draconian laws put in place to prevent unfettered violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's take a more basic view of this. You are standing there in a courtyard in your village and hear someone singing a song. You like the song and you go back to your house and start singing it on the way home. Is that wrong?
Is it wrong if someone hears you?
Is it wrong if people like hearing you sing and pay you for it?
There are a million different variables here. The fact is, the whole concept of copyright is admittedly manufactured. People have NO right to to call what they create IP (and restrict
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it. A person creates something, somebody else through very little effort on their part makes money off that work.
I always wanted to ask that from my boss.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. A person creates something, somebody else through very little effort on their part makes money off that work.
How is that right?
I don't condone the **IA's actions, or record industry contracts, I just don't see why people think it's OK to "get free stuff"
Do you ever listen to the radio? Check out the story from last month how a stable owner in the UK was forced to stop playing classical music from the radio for her horses because she received a cease-and-desist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5061004/Woman-who-plays-classical-music-to-soothe-horses-told-to-get-licence.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Then go on trying to defend the actions of the **IA and their international brethren.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a troll because the issue has been beaten to fucking death here already and questions like that can only result in the same sad flamefests. It would have been better, though, to simply mod it "Redundant".
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but all the "information wants to be free" and "death to the RIAA" posts get modded +5 insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
A valid point, but if you expect life to be fair, you must be new here, and I don't mean slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is my original point. "The fact that this is modded -1 troll says a lot about Slashdot." I am not sure that the rest of this thread added to or subtracted from that one statement.
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, information does want to be free. Given that you can not copyright a fact, why would you have a problem with that concept?
As for "death to the RIAA," just minutes ago I listened to a news report on a local radio station quoting the RIAA bemoaning Canada's inadequate copyright laws and border security. In fact, I see Slashdot carried [slashdot.org] the story yesterday.
And I agree, our copyright laws are in need of reform. The term needs to be shortened; the definition of fair dealing needs to be expanded so copying for the purpose of time-shifting, archiving and backing up purchased media is included; and the use of DRM should invalidate copyright, as the two are incompatible.
But those are not the reforms the RIAA is talking about. They want Canada and other countries to adopt anti-circumvention laws similar to the DMCA, which would make it illegal to defeat DRM for legitimate purposes like those I listed above, and are busy spreading the usual misinformation in order to achieve their goal.
So yes, death to the RIAA and their propaganda machine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
except that Canada passed a law to levy digital mediums to compensate the Canadian copyright firms for their "lost" sales. There's already a "tax" on fair use defined into law... there's no need to make new laws to make things more complicated.
Re:where have I heard this before? (Score:4, Insightful)
There shouldn't be a tax on "fair use." Fair use means non-infringing activity. The CRIA should not be compensated because I want to back up the digital media I buy, or because I want to watch TV when it suits me, or listen to a CD I purchased on my iPod while I run.
As far as new laws, Bill C-61 (which would have been law by now if Harper had not violated his own fixed election legislation last autumn) would have outlawed circumventing "digital locks" in order to make fair use of copyrighted material, just like the DMCA. DRM is incompatible with fair use, and prevents materials from entering the public domain. This is the reason it is incompatible with copyright law, and the reason Canadians need copyright reform that protects them from the US entertainment cartel.
Re: (Score:2)
What, I can't reply to your comment, I have to reply to the whole thread? Is today your day to be boss of Slashdot?
Okay, here goes:
I don't agree with drinkypoo that the AC's comment was redundant, but he is entitled to express that opinion. I
Re: (Score:2)
In the mean time, feel free to expound upon the most difficult aspect of the copyright dialogue: how to compensate original authors.
Certainly the moral aspect of taking someone's work for free, representing it as your own, and then profiting tremendously from it is plain as day wrong.
However, let's complicate it a bit. Take each of these as a "What if?" scenario:
The original author is dead.
The
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He clearly insinuates that having other morals than his is a bad thing, yet you try to defend him by saying that people should open up their eyes and see the world?
The world's full of people with money higher up their list than moral or ethics. Welcome to the *real* world. You might want to get used to that :)
Piracy has always been around and it always will be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is sad that there are so many who don't place a value on the most valuable asset we have -- creativity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Value != Price (Score:2)
Ideas have an immense value. The value of an idea can be so great it's meaningless to compare it with monetary value. How much is the concept of a wheel worth? The idea of using a fire to cook food? The idea of defining an alphabet of symbols to represent spoken sounds?
Price is a different matter. You want to sell something, set a price for it. If the potential buyers agree that it's a fair price then a
The ruin of the music industry... (Score:5, Informative)
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Did these "evil pirates" kill the music industry, as was proclaimed they would?
It didn't ruin the music industry but it probably ruined any number of small composers and threw them to the mercy of big distributers who were the only ones that had the resources to defend against this sort of thing. Even back then piracy could ruin you or at least cause you significant economic harm. A classic example is the 1902 movie: "A Trip to the Moon" [wikipedia.org] by Georges Méliès. The movie was stolen by agents of Thomas Edison and widely circulated in the US by Edison. This ruined Méliès plans to market his film in the US and Méliès never got a profit from this movie. Eventually Méliès was forced into bankruptcy and although the losses on "A Trip to the Moon" probably didn't help his bankruptcy was mostly due to aggressive anti competitive behavior by the big studios of the period. So perhaps the lesson is that there is not much difference between pirates and evil mega-corps from a small/independent artist's or for that matter a small software developer's point of view. Both cause you economic harm and if you are a small/independent artist or software developer you can therefore feel free to detest both equally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
xcept, of course in this specific case (that you use to illustrate your general point) the 'piracy' was performed by a major player(Edison - believe it) and not joe pirate with ... some sort of nifty/cheap 1902-era film copying device.
So it seems to me that your point is that major companies are much more harmful to independents than li'l old pirates.
Not really, my point was to compare the situation at the dawn of the 20th century, when the only one that could do a filmmaker major economic harm by pirating his film was an evil mega-corp like the one run by Thomas Edison, with the movie piracy situation today. The sheet music piracy problem of 1897 is much closer in nature to today's music piracy problem. Both examples, however, illustrate that piracy either by a mega-corp as in Méliès case or a legion of individual pirates as in the case of th
Yes, the music industry died (Score:4, Funny)
They sure did! In the 1890s there was a great market for piano rolls [wikipedia.org]. Where can you buy piano rolls today? Conclusion: pirates killed the music industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Where can you buy piano rolls today?
They went digital decades ago. I saw a piano at Sears that took rolls stored on 3.5" floppy disks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This situation existed up until the printing press was invented. Before then, everything had to be copied by hand and a distributed system was the most effective way of doing this.
The temporary monopoly was to encourage people to invest in printing equipment and printing plates so they could mass produce copies cheaply.
The economics of the Gutenberg Press don't apply to the HP Laserjets of today though.
Loss leader (Score:5, Funny)
I hate the way they sell those Gutenberg presses as a loss leader, then gouge you on printing plates and ink refills.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention that the typesetter they give to run the thing you always tells you you're out of ink when you've still got half a barrel left...
Re: (Score:2)
and plagiarism is rather separate from copying without authorization.
Not necessarily. I imagine that the connection between plagiarism (failing to attribute) and unauthorized copying comes from the fact that in U.S. law, and I'd imagine in the copyright law of most other Berne members, it's easier for a use to qualify under fair use/dealing or one of the other statutory limitations on copyright if the copyright owner is properly attributed.
Re: (Score:2)
In ancient Rome
In ancient Rome slavery was allowed, people would enter arena's and compete against each other until someone (or animal) would be killed, and adults having sex with children was considered OK.
Given that - you really shouldn't compare what happened in ancient Rome to what happens today - it's definitely not a good comparison.
If an artist is so concerned about society and the flourishing of an industry then the artist should release his works to the public without restriction. If he doesn't sign a cont
Re:One saw the same thing in ancient Rome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. You might also take advantage of this additional exposure to build an audience.
Musicians can also tour and make money. It worked for the Grateful Dead for decades, and they were fine with fans taping their shows. It built their community of fervent supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
That sir, is true love of your art.
If I had the talent, I'd likely do the same thing. I can play music (but am a bit out of practice), but I can't write to save my life. When I did play for people, I didn't charge for the performance. I played because I enjoyed it. Not that my performances were much more than friends listening saying "play more! play more!"
I never pursued the idea of being paid for performances. Well, the thought crossed my mind, but I'd bel
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, if you do generic indie rock kind of music, which you can play after learning a few chords. But music requiring real skill requires a much bigger time commitment; besides just
Re: (Score:2)
Many musicians, myself included, do just that. We release albums and other releases without any copyright restrictions and pay the bills with other jobs. Separating music from money removes any sense of making music just for money and shifts the focus back to the music. This may be bad for industry, but it is good for music.
Well that is great for you (no sarcism intended). If you wish to have a day job and then produce music on your own that is your choice. Some people want to get rich from their music and want to make that their day job - that is their choice. BTW being in the high end music industry does not necessarily mean your music is not good or good for the music industry. Music doesn't have to be free to be good (Nirvana wasn't free and their music is cited as the start of grunge which is very popular).
Re: (Score:2)
You should at the very least slap a CC by-nc-sa or similar on those albums, so the RIAA can't steal your work and sell it for a profit with minor modifications.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In spite of this activity, literature still flourished in the ancient work. This is because the market depended on patronism. I wouldn't mind going back to those days, and to some extent we never left them. Indeed, most of the films and music I enjoy now are funded through a great deal of support from state arts ministries and private patrons. Record labels aren't so worried about piracy when the bills are already paid.
So privacy might make it harder for makers of the lowbrow to turn a profit. Boo-hoo. True art will continue to shine regardless of copyright laws.
Yes, because we all want boring post-modern "art" that amuses only jaded aristocratic farts. A return to patronism will only mean a return to pseudo-intellectual garbage that appeals only to a select few, or worse, to a government art committee.
Without popular art we won't have Twain, Dickens, Conan Doyle and every other great author that got started on magazine and newspaper serials. I know /.-ers like to feel superior and that it is all too easy to denigrate popular art, but you need to get a sense of his
Re:One saw the same thing in ancient Rome (Score:5, Insightful)
In spite of this activity, literature still flourished in the ancient work. This is because the market depended on patronism. I wouldn't mind going back to those days, and to some extent we never left them. Indeed, most of the films and music I enjoy now are funded through a great deal of support from state arts ministries and private patrons. Record labels aren't so worried about piracy when the bills are already paid.
So privacy might make it harder for makers of the lowbrow to turn a profit. Boo-hoo. True art will continue to shine regardless of copyright laws.
But the arts have absolutely flourished with copyright. You're totally discounting modern films and large-scale video games, which wouldn't be possible without unbreakable DRM or copyright. In order to conduct art on a massive scale, the producers need to be able to recover their costs. You couldn't spend $100M on a project, if you could never recover the expense.
In addition to enabling the creation of such works, copyright has also provided tremendous financial incentive to produce these works. In the US alone, about $30B per year is spent on these two art forms. In addition to that, art has never been more available. We have public libraries that lend audio recordings, books, and films. Everyone in the United States is able to access electronic entertainment free of charge via radio and television. Art creation is no longer restricted to those patronized by the rich, but can be performed by anyone for the common person, as even the little guy can protect and profit from their work.
And just to defuse this argument before it starts, the one about what constitutes are, ask yourself this. If you were a (probably digital) archaeologist looking back to the mid 20th to early 21st century from 500 years in the future, do you think you would learn about our culture from Band of Brothers, From the Earth to the Moon, The Godfather, and GTA 4, or from a bunch of Pollock paintings?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the arts have absolutely flourished with copyright.
The arts have flourished. But can this be attributed solely or even mostly to copyright? Others that should not be discounted:
Technology has done way more than the law. It's arguable whether the law has helped or actually hindered
Re: (Score:2)
unbreakable DRM
LOL. Tell me, which DRM was unbreakable?
More seriously, your argument hinges on the investor recouping his costs. Let's assume this, even though one can argue that it is not true (F/OSS seems to be working).
If copyright is just to recoup costs, given the 3-6 year cycle of theater -> DVD -> TV, where the majority of income is made, why do we need copyrights longer than a decade? But then you did not argue that. You argued that without any copyright (and DRM) the costs could not be recouped. S
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One saw the same thing in ancient Rome (Score:5, Funny)
old news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this is totally a dupe. kdawson posted this story in 1898!
Related to those old Candian pirates *arr* (Score:5, Funny)
It turns out that my great grandfather was involved in the sheetmusic pirate trade. Actually, he was involved in beaver skinning and general supply chain stuff in the Great Lake area of Quebec and later Manitoba as the pioneers headed westward.
He had two sayings, that are still repeated in my family. "Your customers will buy whatever you sell them, because they don't have a choice." and "What no one finds out you're doing, they aren't going to complain aboot."
While it's certainly not so much true today as it was in those frontier days, the marketplace is still a monopoly in many ways for many types of products. It's only those "customers" who can either forego some product or generate it themselves that can avoid buying from sellers like grampy.
Nowadays with the near instantaneous ability to copy and distribute ephemeral works like music, more and more customers are falling into that latter category of "generating it themselves". Those sellers who want to make a profit off of these pioneers aren't going to see a loon.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he was involved in beaver skinning and general supply chain stuff in the Great Lake area of Quebec and later Manitoba as the pioneers headed westward.
That's amazing! I like to consider myself a beaver skinner.
Nowadays with the near instantaneous ability to copy and distribute ephemeral works like music, more and more customers are falling into that latter category of "generating it themselves". Those sellers who want to make a profit off of these pioneers aren't going to see a loon.
What I'd like to know is, why Canadian pirates? Just because of the added difficulty in tracking down the offenders? The article was pretty similar to NYT articles of today, which is to say, light on the important details and inflammatory in the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he was involved in beaver skinning and general supply chain stuff in the Great Lake area of Quebec and later Manitoba as the pioneers headed westward.
That's amazing! I like to consider myself a beaver skinner.
All beavers should be skinned, imo.
Re: (Score:2)
PaperSharing. (Score:5, Funny)
I think these PaperSharing M2M(Mailbox2Mailbox) systems which allow just anyone to swap files, folders and even whole books should be banned immediately before they destroy all that is good and pure with our country!
Re:PaperSharing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but the USPO should start instigating deep package inspection because I'm sure that these illegal files are causing undue stress on the delivery infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they can perform deep inspections of my "package" anytime they like. :3
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they can perform deep inspections of my "package" anytime they like. :3
John, Dave, you heard the man.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you must be BadAnalogyGuy's archnemesis.
page 6 (Score:4, Funny)
Phonograph Killed the Music Hall Star (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phonograph Killed the Music Hall Star (Score:5, Insightful)
This is modded funny, and I suspect that it was intended to be sarcastic, but it's really quite accurate. John Philip Sousa campaigned extensively against the record when it began, for fear that it would destroy the market for live performance.
Of course, it didn't eliminate it, but it did remove live performance as a reasonable way to gain income, since restaurants could now get ambient music essentially for free.
And of course, removing copyright from the equation would restore the performance industry to its former glory.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still quite a market for live performance, but I agree, the performers likely can't make a living off that, and the market is definitely smaller. But then, how many restaurants can really afford to pay some musicians a living wage? Unfortunately, like many former professions, being a musician for a living is becoming impossible. Time to move on, I guess. Limiting other people's f
John Philip Sousa (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a quote from his article "The Menace of Mechanical Music" from 1906:
Some would say he was just greedy, however; he had an investment in marching bands, which is what most of the article is about, especially those using the Sousaphone. The phonograph was seen as a threat to that.
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee a marked deterioration in American music and musical taste...
Wow... Given that Sousa is probably one of the worst composers of all time that's just an awesome quote.
Copyright The New York Times?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article was published june 13, 1897 - how the fuck can copyright still be applicable to that article?
The copyright was assigned to a corporate entity, and as such there is no "life + 70 years". It becomes what - 90 years at the outside?
Trying to claim copyright on a 112 year old article is insane ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't the copyright valid for up to 120 years for corporate entities? The claim is plausible enough (but still insane).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The [Copyright Term Extension Act] extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]
Since the given date is the date of publication, the copyright should indeed have expired.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be a blanket statement that NYT puts on all their online articles. It might be insane in this case, but from their standpoint I understand why they do it: they put the publishing date there, and the fact that the article was Copyrighted then, and let the user figure out whether the laws in their jurisdiction actually allow the work to be copied. They have no idea what the hell laws Congress might pass (even applying retroactively) in the future, so pass the buck to someone else on determinin
Re: (Score:2)
Fifty Percent? Really? (Score:2)
The Canadians Have a Better Selection (Score:4, Funny)
Pft...anyone can go into a music store in the US and get copies of standard popular drivel like "Let's Hear it for McKinley!" or "The Victoria Waltz", but those stores won't carry the more edgy stuff like "Please Don't Die of the Dropsey, Dear Adeline" or "Miss Merryweather's New Corset".
Until the US realizes that there's a whole market for sheet music and piano rolls that is out of the mainstream, I'm going to keep buying from north of the border.
Blame Canada! (Score:2)
Too funny. I love how even the NYT is making fun of the lobby, or was this supposed to be serious?
It looks like they are using the same stats and logic from 1897 today, none of which is likely correct or makes a lick of sense.
The first thing that popped out at me was the 5 million songs a month figure. I can't be bothered to look it up, but considering what the entire population was in Canada in 1897, I would have to say that it looks like every single ancestor we have up here is a pirate... Yarrr!
Stupid th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still...
Population of Canada in 1897 was approximately 5,122,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_population_of_Canada_by_years#1890s [wikipedia.org]
Number of Songs Per Month Pirated = 5,000,000
Soooo that means EVERY MONTH pretty much every man, woman, child, grandmother, frickin' everyone pirated one song. Every Month. That's a lot of songs. You figure at that rate you would quickly reach some kind of music saturation point where every person in the entire country owns every song ever made...
Anyway it is ridiculous.
Probably worth noting (Score:2)
HAHA! (Score:2, Funny)
Dupe! (Score:2, Funny)
Hilarious, but verified? (Score:4, Interesting)
I call BS (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't anyone skeptical on the authenticity of the article? Do you really think copyright infringers were called "pirates" in 1897?
Re: (Score:2)
Same song and dance (Score:2)
'They use the mails to reach purchasers
Funny how they seem to lack the same understanding of (then) current technology and terminology as the current group.
Re: (Score:2)
'They use the mails to reach purchasers
Funny how they seem to lack the same understanding of (then) current technology and terminology as the current group.
Actually that terminology was in common usage in the period. For some examples read the original Sherlock Holmes stories or works by H.G. Wells.
Abe Simpson might be proud (Score:2)
US was a pirate nation too (Score:2)
The US only passed copyright laws after its printing industry was established.