To: kravitz@foxtail.com

Jody,

Not sure if this is an appropriate contribution to the mailing
list.   Have a look, and if you feel appropriate, add it in.

Regards,

Terry

 [
 [ Editor's Note:
 [    I generally avoid discussing politics and religion in
 [ forums where it has not been requested.  I believe that
 [ reasonable people will come to differrent conclusions and
 [ that they are entitled to them.  From time to time it seems
 [ reasonable to mention things which might effect us in some way
 [ without taking an editorial opinion (other than neutrality).
 [ There are some terrific organs and  carilons in churches.  I'd
 [ hate to exclude discussions of interesting instruments because of
 [ their location or use!  The topic which follows is a political
 [ issue regarding copyrights and changes to the copyright laws.  I have
 [ not researched this issue so I can't speak to the validity of the
 [ following article.  It is quoted here without permission, except for
 [ that attached to the bottom which appears not to be that of the authors
 [ of the article.  I hope I don't offend the copyright owner.  The quoting
 [ of short articles in this manner is pretty common on the Internet, so
 [ I hope that I don't end up in trouble.  As an active roll and book
 [ archivist, I thought the message below was interesting.  I haven't
 [ decided if its ominous...
 [
 [ Jody
 [


****************************************************************

• From: Homzy@vax2.Concordia.Ca   To: ALL                       Orig: MBNET
 Subj: Copyright madness         Area: rec.music.ragtime       Date: 08/12/95
 =============================================================================
•Some readers may be interested in the issues raised here:

From: Andrew Stiller <kallisti@pacs.pha.pa.us>¶
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 15:09:37 -0400 (EDT)¶
To: Finale@shsu.edu¶
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu¶
Subject: Copyright Madness! (long)

The following article appeared in ~The Washington Post~ in mid-July.
U.S. readers who agree with its viewpoint are strongly urged to contact
their legislators.¶
---------------------------------¶
COPYRIGHTED FROM NOW TILL PRACTICALLY FOREVER¶

By Stephen R. Barnett and Dennis S. Karjala

(The writers are professors of copyright law at the University of
California, Berkeley, and Arizona State University, respectively.)

Law doesn't get credit for much these days, but U.S. copyright law,
judged by results, has been eminently successful at stimulating
creativity.  We lead the world in production of books, movies, TV shows,
computer programs and other popular works.

Copyright achieves its results through a bargain, a deal between the
"author" and the public.  The author, or more accurately the copyright
owner, gets a legal monopoly so no one can copy his work.  But this
monopoly can last--as the Constitution dictates--for only a "limited
time."  After that, the work goes into the public domain, so *other*
authors, artists and composers can use it in creating new works, and so
the entire public can draw on it as part of our cultural heritage.

At present copyright lasts in the United States until 50 years after the
author's death--or in the case of corporate authors (such as Disney or
Microsoft), or of works published before 1978, until 75 years after
their publication.

These periods might seem long enough.  But legislation barreling through
Congress, and now before a House Judiciary subcommittee, would add 20
years to every copyright, including existing ones.  The copyright
monopoly thus would extend to 70 years after the author's death, or 95
years from publication.

This is a bad idea, one that would upset the copyright balance.
Super-extended copyright terms add little incentive to create new works.
 What author is going to decide not to write another book because
copyright royalties will flow only for 50 years, not 70 years, after her
death?  But such long terms raise the public's cost for access to the
work.  Indeed they could bar access, since the writer's descendants may
not approve of what she wrote.  When a historian discovered illicit love
letters written by President Warren Harding, Harding's nephew succeeded
in having them locked up for 50 years.

Super-long terms also might block authors from creating new works based
on the earlier ones.  A federal court enjoined Ian Hamilton's biography
of J. D. Salinger because it quoted too much from Salinger's (publicly
displayed) letters.  The pending legislation would let Salinger's heirs
stifle such a biography not just for 50 years but for 70 years after
Salinger's death.  The estate of Lorenz Hart, likewise, could enforce
for an additional 20 years its policy of denying use of Hart's lyrics to
any biographer who won't promise not to mention that Hart was gay.

Or consider the many biographers and would-be biographers of Sylvia
Plath, as chronicled in Janet Malcolm's "The Silent Woman."  They must
contend with censorship of their work by Plath's husband, Ted Hughes, if
they want to quote substantially even from the published poems of Plath.
 This regime, too, would last an additional 20 years under the pending
legislation.

What's going on is a continued refusal by copyright owners to abide by
the copyright bargain.  Works now about to enter the public domain were
published, typically, in the 1920s.  the U. S. copyright term then was
56 years from publication.  In 1978, just as that term was expiring,
Congress extended it to the present 50 years from the author's death or
75 years from publication.  Now *that* term is expiring, and the owners
want another 20 years.  If they get it, they'll probably be back 20
years from now.

The existing periods already are so long that only rarely are we talking
about the authors themselves.  The human individuals who created the
works have long since passed from the scene.  It is their heirs,
assignees and employers who reap the revenues flowing from a longer term
and now want them for another 20 years.

On what grounds?  The main argument is that Europe is doing it.  The
countries of the European Union, in "harmonizing" their copyright laws,
did not want to reduce any existing terms and therefore chose about the
longest term they could find, "life plus 70."  But there's no reason for
the United States to follow this bad example.

Moreover, the pending bills would not really "harmonize" U.S. law with
Europe's.  For example, while U. S. corporate authors would get a term
of 95 years, Europe gives corporate authors--in countries that recognize
such "authorship"--only 70 years, less than the 75 we already provide.

Why does such wrongheaded legislation do so well?  Excessive copyright
terms hurt the general public but feather the nests of copyright
interest groups.  A few years ago, when courts were denying the right
even to quote from copyrighted works, publishers joined biographers,
historians and journalists to protest and get the law amended.  The
present threat to creativity and the public domain probably is greater,
but publishers are more interested in the increased royalties they can
draw by keeping old books and other works out of the public domain for
another 20 years.

Biographers, historians and journalists likewise are not heard from.
The U. S. Copyright Office apparently is "neutral," and the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division has taken no position.  As Congress
moves toward taking this big bite out of the public domain, the
territory lies virtually undefended.