Creation vs Discovery in Music Copyright Law



By The DevilÕs Advocate

As Napster sees the future, music copyrights will only protect Ócreation-shipÓ and not ÓcopyingÓ on the web for individual use. Someday people may even be able to use songs for commercial use without paying royalties, because, that too, may become impossible to stop when everybodyÕs web pages become commercial use with advertising banners. Even so, these ÓpiratesÓ will still never be able to say they Ócreated it.Ó They will always have to give Ócreation rightsÓ to the original artist.

Music writing involves emotions along with words, which takes a certain amount of skill and talent. The random placement of notes and words by a computer could be rearranged trillions of times until it wrote a hit song, but it would be hidden in a quadrillion versions of garbage. So just because it may be possible for a computer to get random words (or notes) in the right order to create a hit song, it doesnÕt mean itÕs feasable. It takes a human with feelings, influences, and culture to feasibly create hit songs, so artists should definitely have rights for ÓcreatingÓ or ÓdiscoveringÓ the sounds and sequence of notes that has public appeal.

Simple Óseries of notesÓ have been ÓdiscoveredÓ to produce a certain emotion, but to build cultural, poetic, and popular ÓsongsÓ from these series of notes is very complex, and from the Ómind of an individual,Ó so that individual is the ÓcreatorÓ. However, his creation was based on a history of previous musicians and their copyrighted sounds, so to ÓownÓ that compination of influnced sounds for monetary gain may not be right. Since he got his influences from society for free, he should return his creation to society for free. However, this sounds better in philosophy that in real life. In real life, everyone wants to get paid for everything.

The difference between ÓdiscoveryÓ and ÓcreationÓ is not exactly clear. Did Edison ÓcreateÓ or ÓinventÓ the first light bulb, or did he discover it? He getÕs credit for inventing it, with a copyright patent that protects it, yet if he hadnÕt invented it, someone else surely would have sooner or later. This leads us to believe that he ÓdiscoveredÓ it. If someone discovers a cure for cancer, will they have the copyright to it? And can they use this copyright to hurt the competition and thus the comsumer? And in the process, become the richest man in the world? Did Bill Gates discover Windows? or invent it? or copy it from Macintosh?

However, music or art is more ÓcreationÓ than Ódiscovery.Ó In the old days, religion was stronger, so artists felt like they were influenced by a higher scource, which led them to ÓdiscoverÓ something for the good of mankind. This could be superstition though.

I agree that the artists should ÓownÓ the rights, and only ÓleaseÓ them to the Record Companies. However, the Record Companies now ÓownÓ the rights, and give a small percentage back to the artist. (The fact that Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles songs is disgusting. Every time you hear a Beatles song, imagine a Óclink chinkÓ sound in MichaelÕs piggybank.)

Bill Gates stole his original ÓWindowsÓ invention from Macintosh by saying it was just Ódifferent arrangements in a roomÓ and therefore not copyrightable by Macintosh.

Using Bill GatesÕ legal theory, which the courts upheld, Ómusic compositionÓ is also Ódifferent arrangements in a room,Ó and therefore not copyrightable.