Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: Tim McNamara <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:19:22 -0500
In article
<c89b7135-64c3-4245-aaf8-766faa9cb0b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
moreyrichman@xxxxxxx wrote:
As you point out, Tim, corporations have manipulated copyright
laws. In fact, they have completely defeated the original intent.
It's pretty hard to equate "original intent" based on society in 1909
to what is required 100 years later, don't you think? It's a
different world than it was in 1909 and laws need to adapt with it.
The specific remedies of the law require adaptation, but the fundamental
intent can be maintained. What is happening is Disney and others seek
to change- and have succeeded in changing- the intent of the law itself.
This is no mean feat and it cost a lot of money to distort how those
issues are seen and to buy those votes.
I seem to recall a web site entitled something like
chillingeffect.com, which documented the chilling effect current
copyright law has on creativity.
I'd love to see this if you can come up with the proper site, I
really don't see how any negative effect can come out of enforcing
long duration copyright protection. In fact, I believe that we live
in the most creative time ever, if people don't think product from
companies like Pixar, Electronic Arts, certain software companies,
film etc aren't some of the most original, advanced and forward
thinking entertainment ever I don't know what was - there are more
and better musicians and independent music companies now than ever,
as there are in all the arts imho - where is the stifling effect that
restrictive copyrights cause?
The "chilling effect" actually is in regard to patents not copyright;
excessive patent issuance without adequate due diligence by the US
Patent Office has been shown to have a net negative effect on a number
of industries, especially the high tech industries such as software. It
has been a boon to the legal industry with millions of dollars spent
litigating ridiculous lawsuits (read the history of the SCO lawsuit on
www.groklaw.net for the sublime example of patent stupidity).
A local owner of a very small creperie told me recently that he was
visited by BMI. The owner had live music for Sunday brunch. The
place only seats about 20 people. The guy from BMI said the owner
would have to pay. The owner said, "What if I have the guy play all
originals." The BMI guy said he might have to pay anyway because
those original songs might "use material from copyrighted music."
The owner stopped using live music.
Just to clear up any misconceptions someone might have reading this,
the strong arm tactics of BMI and ASCAP trying to collect performance
royalties have nothing at all to do with the whole discussion we've
been having on mechanical (publishing) royalties.
Those issues are at least parallel and related in metaconcept.
.
- References:
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: Peter
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: Rick Stone
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: Nate Najar
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: clay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: moreyrichman
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: clay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: dunlop212
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- From: Tim McNamara
- Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- Prev by Date: Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- Next by Date: Re: Mechanicals/Future of Music
- Previous by thread: Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- Next by thread: Re: mechanical licenses are expensive!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
