Comments on: Were we smarter 100 years ago..?

By: links for 2009-08-12 - Die wunderbare Welt von Isotopp

links for 2009-08-12 - Die wunderbare Welt von Isotopp — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:04:27 +0000

[...] Edathy (SPD, Vorsitzender des Innenausschusses des Bundestages) gefordert. (tags: buch zensursula) Were we smarter 100 years ago..? | The Public Domain | Reading the copyright act of 1909, comparing it today. How and why we went wrong. (tags: copyright) [...]

By: The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: July 21, 2009

The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: July 21, 2009 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:18:28 +0000

[...] Were we Smarter about Copyright 100 Years Ago? [...]

By: Current themes evident in copyright arguments from 100 years ago :: in propria persona

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:05:07 +0000

[...] intellectual property law recommended technology 21 Jul 2009 From thepublicdomain.org comes this interesting and revealing series of excerpts from the legislative history of the 1909 Copyright Act: I have been rereading the legislative [...]

By: Užrašai iš skaitmeninio fronto #20

Užrašai iš skaitmeninio fronto #20 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:23:27 +0000

[...] ir informacijos sklaidą, yra itin daug. Tyrinėjantys autorių teisių ištakas pastebi, kad prieš šimtą metų autorių teisių kūrimo tikslas buvo gerokai kilnesnis, nors diskusijų ir kovos su norinčiais tiesiog pasipelnyti iš svetimos kūrybos ir tuomet [...]

By: Links 21/07/2009: Indian Chip Chooses GNU/Linux, Palm Pre SDK Coming | Boycott Novell

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:40:44 +0000

[...] Were we smarter 100 years ago..? I have been rereading the legislative history of the 1909 Copyright Act. I have come to the conclusion that 100 years ago we were smarter about copyright, about disruptive technologies, about intellectual property, monopolies and network effects than we are today. At least, the legislative hearings were much smarter. The hearings I am looking at took place in 1906 — thanks to the wonder of Google books you can read them yourself, if you are really nerdy. [...]

By: We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago | Bob's News

We Were Smarter About Copyright Law 100 Years Ago | Bob's News — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:55:39 +0000

[...] anonymous reader writes “James Boyle has a blog post comparing the recording industry’s arguments in 1909 to those of 2009, with some lovely Google book links to the originals. Favorite quote: ‘Many and numerous [...]

By: The interwebs gets it… « reform copyright

The interwebs gets it… « reform copyright — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:01:20 +0000

[...] won’t, rather than can’t, see what’s obvious to the rest of us. Yesterday, I linked to an article that culled the archives of google books that pointed out the 180 the music industry has done since [...]

By: James Boyle

James Boyle — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:50:12 +0000

You are right of course about the idea that piano rolls weren’t writings — I say so explicitly in the post — although it was a view that was hotly disputed by Sousa and others. But piano rolls actually could be recordings and I’d disagree that they were just “mechanical reproductions of compositions.” Gershwin, for example, recorded a number of piano rolls for Remick. Some (but not all) piano roll recording devices could capture extremely detailed information of what the player was doing and then allow the piano to play that back. That is, the roll was capturing not merely the score, but the playing of the score by an individual player. The more sophisticated version of that technique dates from around 1904. But its true that they weren’t capturing sound waves — they were recording player movements that created sound waves.
I thought I had indicated the difference.. “copyright covered printing and public performance, but did not cover the mechanical reproduction involved in cutting a roll for a player piano or recording a disk or a cylinder for a phonograph or gramophone.” “I find no injustice in the composers getting a share of the revenues produced by sound recordings and piano rolls.”
But clarity is important and I did once call them both sound recordings. Thanks for the correction.
As to the other points, perhaps its an accident of clumsy exposition. And as you know, the 1909 act did give the composer a right that would be infringed by an unlicensed roll or gramophone recording. The recording was not copyrightable, but the recording would infringe the composition’s copyright. The sound recording right giving a separate protection to recordings — distinct from the composition of those recordings — does indeed date from 72.

By: Mark J. Davis

Mark J. Davis — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:20:40 +0000

An important point of clarification is in order here. The piano rolls were not “sound recordings”. They were mechanical reproductions of compositions. The argument was that you couldn’t “read” a piano roll as you could “read” sheet music. Therefore the rolls weren’t “writings” protected by statute.

The compulsory license was instituted to balance out the concerns of both sides.

Sound recordings were not copyrightable in the United States until February 15, 1972. They were however protected under state property laws.

By: jotunheim » One small step for mankind

jotunheim » One small step for mankind — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:37:23 +0000

[...] you can read it all here at Were we smarter 100 years ago..? July 20th, 2009 | Category: computer | Leave a [...]