Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc.....

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (slartabartfast)

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:14:15 GMT

I guess I just don't understand the premise of the objection to "eternal" asset protection. If I create something of value, whether physical or intellectual, that provides a continuous revenue stream for me, why would I release that revenue at death?

You miss the point. Why should I (through my representatives in Congress) grant you an eternal monopoly to keep me from singing your song? You think your "property" is valuable. But it is not the song that is valuable, it is my agreement not to sing your song without paying you that is valuable. There are limits to my patience. Live with it.

Sound simple-minded? So does I thought it, therefore I own it forever.

Want a less simple-minded discussion?

http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (wormser)

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:33:52 GMT

Depends upon what it is... IOW you can't copyright an idea to compute PI to the 10 trillionth place on a pocket calculator, or similar.
You have to actually produce something.

I admit, I don't know the answer.....

What I do know is I deserve to be paid for my work.
All artists do and to me it's no different than that Snuggie thing on TV..
Having worked all over the place, shows, commercials, sessions etc I have been compensated fairly many times and screwed other times.... It all balances out at some point, at least that is what I try to convince myself.

Sadly there is a "freeloader" movement afloat and it is HUGE....Far bigger and widespread than most people even realize.
And these are not high school kids putting on a Christmas show with some copyrighted material, these are organized groups who are bent on petitioning the Govt. to allow free exchange of software, no protection for intellectual property and so forth.
It's starting with the Linux movement and coupled with the FOSS (free open source software) is becoming a major player in the noise making department.
Don't under estimate these people. They are well organized and VERY vocal.
And many of them expect everything for free.
Music, software, source code etc.

One loony, a guy who calls himself Roy Schestowitz, comes to mind.
This nut makes conspiracy oddballs like George Noory look normal.

You can find him at www.boycottnovell.com.

He doesn't believe music, art, graphics, intellectual property etc should have a price. It should all be free.
The interesting part is that apparently he has never in his life contributed to anything useful and this seems to be a trend with people like this.
Well I've rambled enough for now!
Happy Thanksgiving to all!!!

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (bdickens)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:43:10 GMT

How is my intellectual property that I worked to produce (there's that word: "work", i.e. labor - sweat of the brow kind of thing) any different than any of the other property that I worked for and why shouldn't my descendants enjoy the fruits of my labors if that is what I want?

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (space_cowboy)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:28:02 GMT

Also
Anyone that thinks they can download music and movies and software for free should attempt the same process at Best Buy. Good luck with that.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (space_cowboy)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:25:51 GMT

Moshkiae

Hi,

This is a ticklish issue ... and it goes both ways ... but for every person making way too much from the copyrights of something or other, there are many more that are gaining a peso or two ... and a lot of insults and laughs from a community that spends it's time being greedy ... and trying to make every body seem stupid and wrong, simply because they have the lawyers to intimidate people that do not know how things work.

This is bad for newer musicians, and artists, all of whom get massively ripped off right at the start of their careers.

I, personally think that every thing needs to be free ... UNTIL ... the day that the record companies show everyone, the fine print on those record contracts, and then ... I want to see the accounting ... so that we can see out front where the rip offs are and what not.

As for Disney trying to keep their material clean and "relevant" and what not, it is nothing but something borne out fo the fact that they can afford to have someone sit at the computer all day and find anything that is "bad" or might be found about any characters that Disney controls and owns.

When it comes down to it, it is an insult to the "freedom of speech" that this country values so much ... but it is ok to do if a big company decides to do it ... and no one is going to say anything about it!

My hope is that the internet blows all this stuff off and kills it ... sorry ... Disney has lost its relevance way too long ago, and it is all about the millions they can make today ... and absolutely nothing else ... all in the name of "entertainment" ... and there are way too many moms and dads that are suckered into it ... that's not to say that Disneyland is not fun ... well it is for the price, but then ... wouldn't a hooker be usually that good for that price also? And we haven't talked about a glass of soda yet!

The fact is that if you protect yourself and have a copy of your song at the Library of Congress ... the majority of studios and companies and game people (as I call them) out there ... are NOT going to touch you ... unless all of a sudden you sell 10k CD's in one month ... and they will rip your doors down trying to get a piece of the money.

In general ... for the sake of killing the malicious side of it all, and the greed, I really think that it needs to be free for a while ... I don't think that Elton John needs his 1.75 million check every year, or Michael Jackson's 2 million check every year, or McCartney's 3 million check every year, while the Coffee House Band gets a finger or two and no one else listening except a couple fo folks here on the board that we all consider "friends" ... even if the music is better than a lot of crap out there.

If anything, I think that it should all go into a bucket and divided equally between everyone ... but one has to be a "valid" musician/artist and performing, or currently writing ... not just living off one song 50 years ago.

Then I think there would be a little more respect for better music, instead of respect simply for those who sell and a finger for everyone else!

For the record, I don't get a single cent off my dad's works published in 36 languages ... so I can easily say ... ____ U to a lot of this stuff ... and the unreal rip off it has all been ... and continues to be. ... even more so after his death!

I think Marx (Karl) had a similar idea.

This is a terrible idea. Elton John and Paul McCartney make more money than us because they made music more people wanted than wanted ours. Who is to judge who qualifies?

And the system encourages free loaders. If you have a few Elton Johns and Paul McCartneys out there who make tons for everyone to share, (1) what encourages them to strive to produce the same quality as they had in the past, since they will reap little reward? and (2) what encourages someone at the bottom to strive harder since they will see marginally no benefit from it?

People who believe that some form of socialism or communism works must have never spent much time dealing with people from those systems. I have worked with tons of people from Russia and the Soviet Republics over the years. Unequivocally they all say the system is horrid. There is no incentive to strive for greatness.

Karl Marx once said "in capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, the reverse is true." So I ask, if both sides have unfair components to them, why vote for one that punishes ones ability to succeed, unless one realizes he is not competitive versus the others in his field.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (jimmyman)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:48:41 GMT

it's a real shame that the music that's created gets
treated in such a manner as it does. Some people
don't think it's wrong to "take" a song by illegal means.
People steal. Some know it's wrong but don't care.
It looks like some people even think music should be
free.

It is people and greed and lack of respect that really
messes things up and even divides people. It looks
like laws can sometimes have little to no effect on
the "little guy" when it comes to trying to get that
person paid for they're works.

As long as there is no respect for copy-write laws
then these laws mean nothing to those who don't
care. Sometimes there are so many laws that there
actually becomes no law because anything can be
challenged to any point of validity.

If I understand correctly one cannot copyright an
idea. So I tell "Joe Smho" my idea and he makes
millions by using that idea I'm out of luck. There
is such a separation of the writers from the end
user.

most often the "listener" cannot even name the
writer. There seems to be so many questions
that cannot be answered without it being
opinion so it gets all the more complicated.
There are some interesting views/facts and
thoughts on this thread. Maybe if the world
out there could come up with good solutions
we might have something.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (gamblerschoice)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:09:59 GMT

I guess I just don't understand the premise of the objection to "eternal" asset protection. If I create something of value, whether physical or intellectual, that provides a continuous revenue stream for me, why would I release that revenue at death? I have children who will have more children, or a charity that I deeply believe in, or a corporation that bears my name and keeps a small, or if I am lucky, a large number of people employed for decades after I am gone, and a vehicle that protects that income/revenue, why is it anti-anything for me to do this?

I realize that musicians, artists, writers and other liberal thinkers have a knee jerk negative reaction to the big, bad corporations which, again, I have never understood. But were it not for these corporate monsters, many of us would not be able to afford our equipment, no one would be building the instruments and computers, and there would be no reliable source of electricity to power our lifestyles.

My guess is that I should drop out of this discussion, I do not want to drag others into the abyss with me, nor do I want to hijack this thread any further.

Later
Albert

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Spaceduck)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:18:01 GMT

gambo, this could turn into a stupid semantics/grammar debate (in which case I'd defer to julibee to defend my honour), but just to address your points... 'intellectual' and 'property' are indeed 2 words, but the first word qualifies the second. If the phrase were "invisible property", and I said, "How can invisible property be seen?" I'm not ignoring the second word but rather focusing on the first. And I disagree with your statement that "intellect" and "intellectual" mean two totally different things. In my context, one is simply the adjectival form of the other (as the dictionary says "of or relating to").

With regards to ownership/control beyond the lifespan of a human being, startablat said it perfectly: "The person who is served by perpetual copyright is the person who has a perpetual lifespan i. e. the corporation."

I would add "...or a megalomaniac."

We have to swallow the fact that when we humans die, that's when our power on earth ends. Doesn't matter if we want our royalties Paypalled to us in the afterlife or if we want the checks sent to Greenpeace. Dead people can't make such demands. Now there's a convenient way of getting around the death thingie by setting up a trust, a foundation, or as startablat said a corporation to handle our post-mortem affairs, but in my opinion that leads us right back to the point that perpetual/extended copyrights do not serve or protect any living human being. And this corporate hoarding goes directly against the main intent of copyright law.

Quite often, as in the case of MLK above, the entity which gains control of the copyright (MLK's estate) goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction of what the living person wanted. Would Martin Luther King ever have sued CBS for broadcasting his "I have a dream" speech? No, but his estate is happy to do so, raking in more millions and depriving the world of the knowledge that MLK tried so hard to share.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (gamblerschoice)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:23:49 GMT

Link to the comlete article:

http://www.wired.com/epic...publishing-industries/

Copyright time bomb

The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so. At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion.
“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big problem for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.
“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. “It’s just a matter of time.”
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,” said Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll be able to go to Eaglesband.com (updated) and get all their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”

<snip>

Later
Albert

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (slartabartfast)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:14:11 GMT

Copyright is a very old concept in US law, but the duration of copyright has been extended again and again. The US constitution gives Congress the power "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. The original US copyright was for 14 years with the option for the author if living to renew for one more 14 year period.

http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml

Most author's would be well served by a copyright lasting for their own lifetime, and in practice for most works of musical art the value of the copyright decays very quickly. I have never heard an artist claim he would stop working if he were unable to pass his copyright on to his grandchildren. The person who is served by perpetual copyright is the person who has a perpetual lifespan i. e. the corporation. It is the likes of The Walt Disney Company and the wealth and power that they wield before a herd of congressmen whose primary interest is to fill their campaign chests, that has extended the copyright to absurd lengths, not the grass roots writers and musicians with their usually irrational hopes of unimaginable wealth from the fruits of their talents. The public as a whole is infringing copyright every time they sing "Happy birthday to you."

Still the damage that this does to the world is limited. If some wannabe in Kansas City thinks twice about uploading a cover because they can't afford the license, no one suffers greatly. Where a real crime is perpetrated is in the extension and overuse of patents. People are dying every day because the drugs and devices they need are not considered profitable to market to them by the corporations who sit likes dogs in the manger on their patents. And new lifesaving products are not being developed because of concerns that claims of infringement, even if unsuccessful, will make them impractical.

Intellectual property is not an invention of a supreme being. It is a device human beings use for a particular purpose. We would not consider a farmer to be within a reasonable exercise of his rights to refuse to allow medics to cross his fields to help citizens injured in a plane crash. We should be able to appreciate the public interest in granting/limiting intellectual property rights in the same manner.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (gamblerschoice)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:19:23 GMT

..."intellectual property"...

You have two words there. Your question, "How can intellect be passed from one person to another?" ignores the second, most important word, "Property". It is the property of the author, and his to pass on as he sees fit. What if the copyright holder willed his rights and future royalties to an orphanage, children's hospital, museum or library? Would that be a more fitting use of the legacy? And "intellect" is not the same as "intellectual", they mean two totally different things, especially in a economic discussion.

If a man builds a home with his own labor on land he purchased with money he earned from his own labor, and then wills it to his children, is that not part of the "capitalism" we should be endorsing in a country built on individual effort, the right to "life, liberty, and property"?

Life, liberty, and property was the original statement that Jefferson wanted included in the document, but he was persuaded to change that during the deliberations. The right to property is vital, and intellectual property is only one form of that concept.

Later
Albert

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Spaceduck)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:18:25 GMT

wormser

This goes way back to W.C. Handy (St Loius Blues amongst others) who sold the rights to his music to a guy who conned him.
The music buisness is cut throat and crooked as all heck BTW.

Ooh, you opened up another great subject there. So many artists get screwed by the same laws that are there to protect them, just because a tricky con artist can get them to sign on a dotted line. Heck, we're musicians, not lawyers. We fool easily!

Wouldn't it be great if copyright ownership could only belong to the person who created it? Licensing could be sold to record companies etc, but in the eyes of the law, the only person who gets protected is the original creator.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Spaceduck)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:08:16 GMT

Yup, I agree with everything you said, Hack. I didn't say it in my original post, but I'm fully in favor of copyrights protecting & giving control to the artist.

The problem is after the artist dies & copyright control passes to the 'klingons' (people who had nothing to do with creating the art). This is where the concept of intellectual property gets crazy. How can intellect be passed from one person to another? " />

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (wormser)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:05:08 GMT

Great replies!! See I told you this is a very sticky subject where there is no clear cut answer.
I'm with Mosh and SpaceDuck on this one BTW although great points have been made by all.

An example of copyrights stifling music is the Christmas season and holiday tunes. Let's face it, most of us listen to and perform these things for maybe 4 weeks per year so the exposure is limited.

Yet I can pretty much assure you if you put up your latest creation of Winter Wonderland on YouTube, the boys and gals at Warner or whomever will be sending nasty notes asking you to take it down.
My take is, who cares?
They aren't losing a dime, I get a little publicity and maybe some people like and enjoy my music. It also promotes the song and maybe some people will purchase the chart from the publishers so they can play it too and Warner will make a few bucks.
I just don't get it.
Now if I were selling CD's in huge quantities or using the tune in a TV spot that was making millions for a product, then that's a different thing. It becomes commercial at that point.

I certainly believe artists should be compensated and I would be in favor of the copyright extension etc if big business (ie:record companies) were kept completely out of the loop.
This goes way back to W.C. Handy (St Loius Blues amongst others) who sold the rights to his music to a guy who conned him.
The music buisness is cut throat and crooked as all heck BTW.
There is a great book called "Hit Men" which gives an excellent in depth analysis of the music business.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Guitarhacker)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:43:31 GMT

The only way I see it "promoting progress and all that other stuff" is the simple fact that it does protect the author/creator's self interest by giving...as the link mentioned...a monopoly for a period of time that allows the author to exploit the commercial value.

If that protection did not exist.... no one would spend much time creating, inventing, writing, since anyone and everyone could simply steal the idea, invention, whatever... and there would be a very limited ability to capitalize on your own work......so there would be no real reason to create intellectual property. So yes, in that respect I can agree with the statement..... but I still see self interest , and protection......to be at the core of copyright laws.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Spaceduck)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:07:40 GMT

That's true on an individual level, but I'm thinking more of the economic ideology, or the "big picture" as they teach in Econ class:

"The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge."

http://www.lib.byu.edu/de...rial/module1/page3.htm

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Guitarhacker)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:54:11 GMT

what is the intended purpose of copyrights & patents?

No..... it's NOT to provide incentive to improve product nor is it to foster competition..... no way.....are you kidding me?

It does promote the ideals of capitalism in that what you create, you are free to profit from.....

but most importantly...... it's to keep people and companies with more money and connections than you, from stealing your intellectual property and making an unjust profit from it. A copyright ensures that they will have to pay you for your efforts if they wish to use and license your song.... or creation/invention.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Spaceduck)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:58:11 GMT

I'm with Mosh on this one, particularly regarding copyrights after the songwriter's death.

Think about it: what is the intended purpose of copyrights & patents? To provide incentive to the artist/inventor & foster competition so that the product will improve. In other words, to keep Capitalism moving in the right direction.

When the artist/inventor dies, why should society continue to reward his or her offspring when they have nothing to offer? If they do, let them earn the rewards by their own merit, not by clinging to mommy's/daddy's coat tails. This is the point where capitalism (rewarding those who excel) turns into a welfare state (rewarding those who have not necessarily earned it).

I know I'm harsh on this subject, but that's because I believe art is one of the areas that should never be stifled by greed. Non-artists and people who do not contribute to the progress of art should never be in control. This includes lawyers, corporate execs and greedy offspring*. I say leave it all in the hands of the artist, and when the artist dies--as with social security checks--all benefits end.

*Like what's the deal with Martin Luther King's Estate (his great-granddaughter's cousin's roommate for all I know) claiming copyright ownership of his "I have a dream" speech still 50 years after the fact, earning $2 million a year on it, and suing anyone who attempts to rebroadcast it? The result: his speech dies, if I want to hear it--or heaven forbid I want to use it as the basis for a song--I'm outta luck. This doesn't help art or society one bit.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (gamblerschoice)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:43:48 GMT

..."I don't think that Elton John needs his 1.75 million check every year, or Michael Jackson's 2 million check every year, or McCartney's 3 million check every year"...

..."but for every person making way too much"...

How exactly would you define "way too much"? Did you check with elton, michael, or paul, ask them what amount of money per year they thought they should be making?

Maybe we should all just take our wallets and bank acounts and dump the total amount of money we all make in one big pile, and then let anyone who wants some to help themselves.

And when the producers see the fruit of their labor go to those who choose to do nothing but take from the pile quit producing, where will the money come from?

Socialism and communal society does not work, now or ever. Your concept of greed might be my concept of, oh, I don't know, maybe getting paid for my efforts.

Later
Albert

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Moshkiae)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:11:02 GMT

Hi,

This is a ticklish issue ... and it goes both ways ... but for every person making way too much from the copyrights of something or other, there are many more that are gaining a peso or two ... and a lot of insults and laughs from a community that spends it's time being greedy ... and trying to make every body seem stupid and wrong, simply because they have the lawyers to intimidate people that do not know how things work.

This is bad for newer musicians, and artists, all of whom get massively ripped off right at the start of their careers.

I, personally think that every thing needs to be free ... UNTIL ... the day that the record companies show everyone, the fine print on those record contracts, and then ... I want to see the accounting ... so that we can see out front where the rip offs are and what not.

As for Disney trying to keep their material clean and "relevant" and what not, it is nothing but something borne out fo the fact that they can afford to have someone sit at the computer all day and find anything that is "bad" or might be found about any characters that Disney controls and owns.

When it comes down to it, it is an insult to the "freedom of speech" that this country values so much ... but it is ok to do if a big company decides to do it ... and no one is going to say anything about it!

My hope is that the internet blows all this stuff off and kills it ... sorry ... Disney has lost its relevance way too long ago, and it is all about the millions they can make today ... and absolutely nothing else ... all in the name of "entertainment" ... and there are way too many moms and dads that are suckered into it ... that's not to say that Disneyland is not fun ... well it is for the price, but then ... wouldn't a hooker be usually that good for that price also? And we haven't talked about a glass of soda yet!

The fact is that if you protect yourself and have a copy of your song at the Library of Congress ... the majority of studios and companies and game people (as I call them) out there ... are NOT going to touch you ... unless all of a sudden you sell 10k CD's in one month ... and they will rip your doors down trying to get a piece of the money.

In general ... for the sake of killing the malicious side of it all, and the greed, I really think that it needs to be free for a while ... I don't think that Elton John needs his 1.75 million check every year, or Michael Jackson's 2 million check every year, or McCartney's 3 million check every year, while the Coffee House Band gets a finger or two and no one else listening except a couple fo folks here on the board that we all consider "friends" ... even if the music is better than a lot of crap out there.

If anything, I think that it should all go into a bucket and divided equally between everyone ... but one has to be a "valid" musician/artist and performing, or currently writing ... not just living off one song 50 years ago.

Then I think there would be a little more respect for better music, instead of respect simply for those who sell and a finger for everyone else!

For the record, I don't get a single cent off my dad's works published in 36 languages ... so I can easily say ... ____ U to a lot of this stuff ... and the unreal rip off it has all been ... and continues to be. ... even more so after his death!

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (Guitarhacker)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:48:15 GMT

Copyrights are valuable and can be bought and sold.... the owner of a copyright has the full right to exploit the song. They would be a fool not to. Copyrights are considered to be property and as such do not end with the death of the writer...that would be plain stupid.... just because someone dies, you can now take their music for free.....? No. I think the current copyright law is the lifetime of the writer PLUS 75 years....(IIRC) and that is fair..... let my family collect the royalties and licensing from my tunes for 75 years..... by then it will probably not be drawing much income...so if you want my music then... have at it....I won't care much at that point.

I do not see music moving into the "share freely" zone any time soon. I just returned from a songwriters conference and this is a big concern to songwriters. Artists have concert & merchandising revenues... but a songwriter only has royalties from copyright. The industry is looking into a way to capture the royalties in an effective and fair manner with the internet.

My stand is that a copyright should be enforced and all royalties and licenses paid for all usage in the entire world. I understand that it is pure fantasy to expect that to be 100% enforced.....

I read recently about a girl who uploaded a song to her web page and made it a free download to anyone who wanted it.... she was sued and the first jury gave the record company $12K IIFC..... she appealed it and in the next trial, the jusy awarded the record company $80k in lost revenues.... I guess you could say that on her site...which was popular, based on the number of days the song was available, times the number of visitors.... at .99cents a download, it would not be unreasonable to have had 80,000 downloads of the song from her web site.... a hard lesson to be sure but it amounted to lots of lost revenue for teh artist and songwriters of that song. I have no sympathy for people who do such things..... it is basically stealing from the artist and songwriters just as if she had stolen their wallet.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (wormser)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:44:36 GMT

bdickens

Why shouldn't Hoagy Carmichael's grandson should be making 1 million + dollars per year off the rights from Stardust?

He didn't write it?

Arguments can be made both ways which is why this is such a difficult issue.

Personally, I believe copyrights should end with the death of the originator, or maybe some short period after.
Look what is going on in the Gershwin family.
They are fighting to retain the copyrights and artistic control so that say, a Rap version of Porgy and Bess can't be released.
That all sounds wonderful, yet when you look a little deeper, they are fighting about the money.
It's all about the money.
Is that what George and Ira would have wanted?
I dunno?
http://www.techdirt.com/a...91102/0401476761.shtml

Others believe they should be inherited, like say the secret recipe for Coca Cola.

Re:Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (bdickens)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:57:36 GMT

Why shouldn't Hoagy Carmichael's grandson should be making 1 million + dollars per year off the rights from Stardust?

Copyrights, Free Music, File Sharing etc..... (wormser)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:25:08 GMT

There seems to be a grass roots movement afloat that is advocating free music, no copyrights, no DRM etc.
It seems to be coming mostly from the Open Source (Linux) community and I was curious about how other musicians and songwriters, arrangers, performers, etc feel about this.

I'm not sure where I stand on all of this.
Obviously I want to be paid for my work and when I play on an album, if my contract specifies royalties, I expect to get paid.
IOW I don't want to see Wrangler Jeans using my performance in a commercial, that makes them money, without me getting something.

OTH I don't feel it is right for Disney and others to be trolling YouTube taking down videos of kids playing the tunes from Snow White at the high school drama club performance.
Nor do I feel Hoagy Carmichael's grandson should be making 1 million + dollars per year off the rights from Stardust.

It's a real tough one IMHO and I feel the music biz is at a crossroads here.

BTW this applies to books, art, designs etc

Opinions?