[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Britain reverses position on copyright extension


In all due respect, you will not find many takers here. I am an artist
has been recording music for nearly 30 years and never made a dime from
it - it has cost me money actually. But at least I am working on
conserving my own work, and still have control of most of it.

The US-based laws relating to copyright reform in regard to sound
recordings and ownership thereof were made without any consideration of
details such as that performance royalties organizations are slow payers
and that major music interests often are poor conservators of work.
Often the original deals made between music interests and musicians were
sham situations where artists made nothing, and even in the best case
scenarios the artist winds up at the end of a long, long chain -- so
long in fact that the major music interest has to outsource experts to
find out what happened to them. Madonna, Mariah Carey, Garth Brooks and
others in that class, of course, are not subject to such wanton neglect,
and many of us feel that the argument that major music interests make
about protecting the earnings of artists only go so far as to protect
these money-making few, and naturally their own interests, perhaps more
than anything.

It's not what the law says; it is how it is implemented and the
interests behind it. We are living in a world where someone can sue an
83-year-old Grandmother for $9000 to raise money so Mariah Carey can eat
herself fat, then afford to have a tummy tuck to repair the damage;
meanwhile, Buddy Holly's master tape vault goes up in flames. It is a
system that is fatally flawed, and personally I don't see how any
legislation will fix the matter in the short term. It will take baby
steps and perhaps generations to change; in the meantime, I don't ever
regret spending any money on my own music and thank God that my earnings
are not in the hands of free-market capitalists.

So I find it impossible to sympathize with anyone who uses the
protection of artists to support legislation to amend copyright along
any lines we have seen in the last decade. As an artist, I am seriously
considering rolling out my entire catalogue for free.

These are my own views and not those of my employer.

David Uncle Dave Lewis
Ann Arbor, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul D
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:50 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Britain reverses position on copyright extension

The Constitution states for a limited time. That could be interpreted
from 1 day to the lifetime of the artist. I assume that they intended to
to permit the artist/creator the ability to profit from his or her work.
Would Free Market Capitalists argue for no protection under the law?
Possibly. But that would suck all of the incentive out of producing new
music. The market would favor those that steal other artist's work and
are better able to market it. Promoters win. Artists lose. Equal
Protection Clause?

Today, the bigger issue is globalization and the black market. New music
and movies are pirated before distribution by those outside their
country's jurisdiction.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Biel <mbiel@xxxxxxxxx>
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Britain reverses position on copyright extension

I don't know who you are, but this does not seem to be your field.?
Paul D wrote:?
> Copyright laws are designed to allow the Creator to financially
benefit > from their work. ?
> I'm not sure how you can ethically separate a songwriter > from his
royalties for any length of time. ?
"SECTION EIGHT - Powers of Congress*?
"The Congress shall have 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;"?
A REAL understanding of this clause of The Constitution shows that it
was understood by our founding fathers -- many of whom were writers and
inventors -- that unless "the exclusive Right" was "for limited Times",
society and the country will not truly progress and benefit. It was a
long established principle in law that the time period of Public Domain
was MORE IMPORTANT than the time period of copyright or patent. The
works are created FOR the PUBLIC DOMAIN, but prior to giving it to the
public, the creator will benefit. That time period is the BAIT to get
things to be created. But the eventual path of ALL creations were meant
for the Public Domain. Industry money and lobbys have been able to trick
our recent congress to misunderstanding these longstanding legal and
social concepts.?
> Its like finding a gold mine > and only benefitting for 7 years; after
which you turn it over for "public > use". You found the gold. You keep
it. Period.?
> ?
BALONEY. Haven't you ever heard of Eminent Domain??? It is in the Fifth
Amendment * "Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for
Takings. Ratified <http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR>
" . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
This means that if there IS "just compensation", private property CAN be
taken for public use. It happens all the time. ?
"The power of the federal or state government to take private property
for a public purpose, even if the property owner objects. The Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the government to
take private property if the taking is for a public use and the owner is
"justly compensated" (usually, paid fair market value) for his or her
loss. A public use is virtually anything that is sanctioned by a federal
or state legislative body, but such uses may include roads, parks,
reservoirs, schools, hospitals or other public buildings. Sometimes
called condemnation, taking or expropriation."?
> Royalty fees are trivial. Like 10 cents per sale on a song.?
> http://moneywisdom-gold.blogspot.com >?
> It is not the cost that is at issue, it is the restriction of use.
SONGS cannot be restricted from use by any other person or company --
there is compulsary use written into the law. If I want to record your
song, you MUST let me. But recordings are not included. If a company
wishes to restrict any use of a recording EVEN BY THE CREATOR, they can
restrict the use. Except by special contract, PERFORMERS DO NOT OWN
Mike Biel mbiel@xxxxxxxxx?

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]