Re: [ARSCLIST] ^ Letter on British Copyright Term Extension

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Olhsson" <olh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Karl Miller wrote:
> >Karl (who puts a clause in each of his contracts which has the full
rights
> >revert to the artist should their product not be made available by my
> >label)
>
> This along with a lease of rights has been common practice since the '50s
unless the label has advanced hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
artist. Recordings are also not allowed to be works for hire.
>
> I happen to think there should be no limit on copyright. Limits only
reduce the value and with that the amount an artist can get paid in the
event they decide to sell their copyright. This issue isn't about earning
money after they're dead. It's about paying them generously while they're
alive and, far more important, creating an incentive beyond mere ego
gratification to create new music.
>
And I disagree (and I'm a musician, at least of sorts!). First, the concept
of
unlimited copyrights only begins to make sense if EVERY artist (including
past artists) owns the copyrights to his/her/its music...and, second, there
will always come a time when virtually of of the world's inhabitants lose
interest in the musical works copyrighted! At that point, making the
copyrighted material available to that small portion of the public who
retain any interest becomes non-feasible in any practical sense...
which means the works effectively no longer exist, since they cannot
be accessed! Who (besides me) still wants to hear "Since Willy Got
a Whippet?!"

And to whom would we be paying royalties on Gregorian Chants...?!

Steven C. Barr