|
|
Posted by Steve Guidry on 01/12/06 18:35
I'm curious, Wilbur . . . Are you an attorney ?
Or are you just a guy with strong ideas about how you think copyright law
_should_ work ?
"Wilbur Slice" <wilbur@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:59kas19b3tpo12a3uqh151isppud7itb8m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:36:48 -0600, Bob Olhsson <olh@hyperback.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Paul Stamler wrote:
> >> "Michael J. Anthony" <nondisclosed@no-spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>What is it with bluesmen and ailments?
> >> In a time with little social safety net, music was one of the few
> >> occupations open to a blind person.
> >
> >It's a little known fact that the modern popular music business was
> >invented by none other than P.T. Barnum before he went into the circus
> >business. Freaks have always been an entertainment attraction. Pop music
> >has only been promoted as being "art" since the folk revival of the
> >1950s and the Beatles who were originally publicized through the fashion
> >industry rather than the music industry.
>
>
> What?
>
> The Beatles were publicized through the fashion industry? What does
> that mean? They played gigs at fashion shows in Paris and Milan?
>
>
> >
> >Very few real public domain songs have ever been recorded because music
> >publishing has always been a major source of income for artists,
> >producers and record labels.
>
> What?
>
> Record labels should love to record public domain stuff because that
> means they don't have to pay the publisher any royalties (because
> there isn't a publisher). It's the same as if the record label owned
> the publishing rights, except that they wouldn't get any royalties
> when someone else records the song. But they would get to keep all
> the money they would otherwise have to pay in royalties.
>
>
> > During the folk revival there was a great
> >deal of one-upsmanship over who had greater "authenticity." This lead to
> >many brand new songs being touted by artists and their managers as being
> >"traditional."
>
> What?
>
> So people who owned the publishing rights to songs voluntarily gave
> it away so they could claim more "authenticity"? While I don't doubt
> that that did happen in some instances, I would be surprised if it was
> particularly widespread, and it doesn't seem like a smart move to me.
>
>
> >
> >It would probably be a great deal less work to write new music than to
> >unearth useful public domain music. A lot of corporate interests seek to
> >expand the public domain only as a means of forcing contemporary
> >composers to settle for lower levels of payment.
>
> What?
>
> Corporate interests like Disney and Sony are strenuously (and
> successfully) fighting to shrink the public domain by extending the
> lifetime of copyrights - copyrights they own, of course. The
> existence of the public domain doesn't result in contemporary
> composers being paid less - the royalty rates are set by statute.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|