Copyright and Patent

[drhulsey]

We have had discussions on this forum regarding copyright and patent protection. I have appended a lengthy but interesting article on this subject. The Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution empowers the United States Congress:” To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Note the terms “limited Times.” Thomas Jefferson disliked monopolies of any kind, but was persuaded by James Madison that giving the incentive of an exclusive right to an invention, book, piece of music, etc., would promote creativity. After a “limited time” it would revert back to the public domain where it could be used by others as a basis for further creative efforts. In essence, the public agrees to limit its own access to certain information or objects, and in a “limited time” will get it returned to the public for use by others. Also note that the purpose was “To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” and, as one commentator put it, “not to promote the maximizing of income for authors and inventors. The framers of the constitution understood that information dissemination was important to the country and information should not be held hostage forever by rights holders.” Except by act of the framers of the Constitution, there is no “inherent right to monopoly over one’s own work.”
Congress has bastardized this “limited time” by making repeated extensions of copyright in general and in specific. One Congresswoman suggested that extending them FOREVER would be good, but might be unconstitutional. Sen. Schumer of New York suggested “forever minus one day.” Neither was adopted. Trademark , under the Constitution, can evidently last forever.
This interests us, on this forum especially as it relates to amplifiers and to music. I present this only as an interested person and not a legal scholar. I hope this article is informative.

[RJ Guitars]

Tim,

Thanks for this. For myself I have wrestled this topic in my own mind several times, never fully reconciling all the aspects of it.

In the music copyright biz it seems that a few lucky dogs were able to grab up some of the more pleasant chord progressions and get legal protection... brings to mind the George Harrison -- "One Fine Day" saga.

In the amp business if you look at the RCA tube manuals from the 40's and 50's, it seems impossible for anyone else to actually claim ownership of one of the handful of primary circuits.

FWIW - I guess I'll just sit back and watch the show while big business wrestles the emerging world suppliers and markets, where patent and copyright protection are somewhat non-existent, hoping that we the average consumer have a chance to grab up a few bargains...

That should be adequate to verify my ignorance of this topic.

rj

[drhulsey]

It strikes me that, like most everything, it requires a balance between recognizing and rewarding innovation and allowing society to use that knowledge as a springboard to continue innovating.
Yin and Yang
Follow the Middle Way, Cricket

[Stanz]

This is an area where I think it has gotten out of hand and that the founding fathers had it right. Disney is a great example. The Disney Corp, which had nothing to do with the creation of the original movies of Walt, are hanging on and claim ownership of his creative product. So how long will that be allowed to continue? If Disney had its way, forever. Or Adobe taking public domain stories and claiming control of them because it is placed in a PDF file. I can think of an example here with one of the amp lines having passed on to an estate, and is now controlled by someone who doesn't even make any product.

There are entities that create patents, though making no product, in the hopes of being able to cash in. Sort of like in the early days of the web, when someone would grab up a domain name and hope for a payout because they had grabbed CocaCola.com. These examples are clearly ones that should be eliminated as they truly do stifle progress.

Clear to say that corporate influence over our laws has allowed control of rights to be extended beyond their original design. Hopefully, there isn't a big backlash against this that removes some protection for the original creators.