ryanm wrote:

It *is* the role of the state to grant *certain* rights. Other rights
are inherent. You don't think that commerce is a granted right? 200+ years
of Constitutional lawyers, the framers of the Constitution, and our Supreme
Court disagree with you.

I can see no basis for your interpretatation of that process
as one of granting the right rather than delimiting and
protecting one that existed.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article writes:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1083926158k@trad...

Tax breaks for corporations and farmers. Low interest small business
loans. Even low interest big business loans. The FDIC. Lots of stuff,
none of which Congress would have thought of if it wasn't for
lobbyists.

And these things are comparable to granting monopolies how?

First off, nobody's granting a monopoly. When are you going to get
that into your pigheaded head?

However, given that you have this one track mind, those are similar in
that it's Congress helping a business make money, or at least survive
so that they can potentially make money in the future. I suppose you
could consider bankruptcy laws to be in this category also.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Once again, you're thinking of this from strictly a published music
perspective. This issue is larger than that. What if I want to use your song
as a background track (for instance, playing on a jukebox in a bar scene) in
a movie?

So, you ask, and you pay the price if you want to use it badly enough.
It's called "supply and demand."

Not only can you tell me that I can't use it, you can also charge
me whatever you want for the license to use it.

Exactly. I'm not sure that I can tell you that you can't use it at
all, but I may set a price that's high enough to discourage you.

Now, I'm not saying that
there is anything wrong with that setup, but it should be limited in term,
so that *eventually* (within the same lifetime as it's release) it should be
avilable for use without your permission.

It is. You're just saying this term limit should be shorter than it
is. Don't argue with me, argue with your congessman.

Name for me 4 songs from the past 30 years that don't steal diurectly
from previous works.

I can't, because I'm not sure I can name 4 songs that I'm sure are
from the past 30 years. You're asking the wrong person here. One can
legitimately argue that every song is a dirivitive work. You have no
point here.

What does time or even money have to do with anything? Neither are
important to creativity.

Then why do you need exclusive right to your works, if money isn't
important?

Well, because it's my job, and by having some rights, I am able to
make money from it. Would you flip hamburgers eight hours a day for no
money just because you enjoyed cooking?

That was then. Now we have different means of communication and
publishing. We also have different tastes. We also have a different
economy. Do you think the producers of My Fair Lady would let a little
thing like a royalty payment stand in their way?

Tell me how it's different now.

Well, for one, the Internet. And the marketing, distribution, and
economy must be different than it was 50 years ago since there are as
many new releases coming out each week today as there were in a year
during the early days of the LP.

That's because you haven't presented a valid argument for a shorter
copyright term. Nothing to argue with.

Sure I have, you're just not listening.

I keep trying, but you're not saying anything that makes sense to
anyone but you as a potential user of someone else's work. Save a buck
at the songwriter's expense - that seems to be your point.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

I can see no basis for your interpretatation of that process
as one of granting the right rather than delimiting and
protecting one that existed.

Re-read your Constitution, particularly the Commerce Clause. Also, check
out SC decisions on the subject, they continually reaffirm that commerce is
not a natural right, that it is a right extended by Congress.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1084110290k@trad...

So, you ask, and you pay the price if you want to use it badly enough.
It's called "supply and demand."

Unless the creator simply says no. Which is his right, but it's not a
right that should extend into perpetuity.

It is. You're just saying this term limit should be shorter than it
is. Don't argue with me, argue with your congessman.

Not within a single lifetime. If a song comes out tomorrow, it will be
at least 70, and more likely 100 years, before that work can be used without
the permission of the author.

I can't, because I'm not sure I can name 4 songs that I'm sure are
from the past 30 years. You're asking the wrong person here. One can
legitimately argue that every song is a dirivitive work. You have no
point here.

It was your point, I was simply refuting it.

Well, because it's my job, and by having some rights, I am able to
make money from it. Would you flip hamburgers eight hours a day for no
money just because you enjoyed cooking?

Again, it was your point, I was simply refuting it.

Well, for one, the Internet. And the marketing, distribution, and
economy must be different than it was 50 years ago since there are as
many new releases coming out each week today as there were in a year
during the early days of the LP.

And doesn't this mean that the effective period of commercial viability
for a work is substantially *shorter* than it was previously? I believe you
are making my point for me.

I keep trying, but you're not saying anything that makes sense to
anyone but you as a potential user of someone else's work. Save a buck
at the songwriter's expense - that seems to be your point.

Again, you're not listening. I want to give the songwriter *more*
rights, but I want to give them to him while he's still alive, not 70+ years
after he's kicked the bucket.

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1084109756k@trad...

First off, nobody's granting a monopoly. When are you going to get
that into your pigheaded head?

Copyright == monopoly. This is known and addressed in thousands of
documents spanning hundreds of years. You're going to have to calm down and
stop calling names, because it really makes it difficult for me to do your
homewrok for you when you berate me the whole time.

However, given that you have this one track mind, those are similar in
that it's Congress helping a business make money, or at least survive
so that they can potentially make money in the future. I suppose you
could consider bankruptcy laws to be in this category also.

I thought we were talking about those poor, starving songwriters, not
the greedy corps that suck the life out of them? ; )

ryanm

I thought we were talking about those poor, starving songwriters, not
the greedy corps that suck the life out of them? ; )

If I wrote a song what does this have to do with any corp?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
If I wrote a song what does this have to do with any corp?

And furthermore, how do shorter term limits benefit ANYBODY other than the
largest media distributors? Longer term limits ONLY benefit individuals and
the corporations who paid those individuals for the exclusive use of their
material. It's one of very few areas where an individual has any power over
distributors without regard to one's financial clout. This is why our
friends in Silicon Valley and the tech press writers who suck up to them are
so vehemently opposed to copyright.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

In article writes:

So, you ask, and you pay the price if you want to use it badly enough.
It's called "supply and demand."

Unless the creator simply says no. Which is his right, but it's not a
right that should extend into perpetuity.

Nor, however, is the liklihood of need. Will you wait 30 years to make
your movie with a song on the jukebox that you were denied permission
to use? I think not. You'll just pick another song.

I just heard an interview on the radio last week, the subject and
content has passed out the other end of my brain right now, but a
portion of the interview had to do with a song that was used in a
movie. The interviewer commented that he (or was it she?) thought it
was a particularly appropriate song, and the interviewee said that the
reason why they chose that song was because the movie company
(Paramount I believe) already owned the publishing rights to it so the
woudn't have to pay for it.

Not within a single lifetime. If a song comes out tomorrow, it will be
at least 70, and more likely 100 years, before that work can be used without
the permission of the author.

So? What's wrong with securing permission from the author and paying
the price? You're picking on a small instance here where someone was
denied permission to use a work. Maybe the author didn't approve of
his work being associated with that other work. What was the reason?
Or was it that he just wanted what seemed like an unreasonable amount
of money?

A friend of mine wanted to publish a book of guitar tablature for
Beatles songs, but they wanted so much for the rights to use the
material that the book publisher didn't expect to be able to make
enough to pay for it, so they didn't publish the book. So people will
have to figure out how to play those songs themselves (at least until
the OTHER book came out).

Restrictions on use are rare. Get over it.

And doesn't this mean that the effective period of commercial viability
for a work is substantially *shorter* than it was previously? I believe you
are making my point for me.

Maybe, maybe not. There's a greater pool out there, so it might take a
longer period of time for someone to discover a song now than before.
Pity if some profit slipped through a songwriter's fingers just
because his song didn't reach the top of a pile for 30 years.

Again, you're not listening. I want to give the songwriter *more*
rights, but I want to give them to him while he's still alive, not 70+ years
after he's kicked the bucket.

I don't see that you're giving him any more rights. I'm not strongly
in favor of extending rights to heirs, but I feel that as long as he
has responsibilities (which may include taking care of heirs after
he's gone) that his song should be a valuable commodity. But that's
too indefinite for any court to decide, so I guess a number which you
consider unreasonable will have to do.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1084137522k@trad...

Nor, however, is the liklihood of need. Will you wait 30 years to make
your movie with a song on the jukebox that you were denied permission
to use? I think not. You'll just pick another song.

I'll go back to my previous example, the movie Dazed and Confused. They
couldn't get permission to use the song Dazed and Confused, which was
certainly represenetive of the time period being portrayed, recognizable,
and wasn't actually written by Zeppelin in the first place. Why should they
have been denied the use of this song, which clearly would've had value to
the movie, when Zep already made plenty of money on it (not to mention the
fact that they used someone else's song without license in the first place)?

I just heard an interview on the radio last week, the subject and
content has passed out the other end of my brain right now, but a
portion of the interview had to do with a song that was used in a
movie. The interviewer commented that he (or was it she?) thought it
was a particularly appropriate song, and the interviewee said that the
reason why they chose that song was because the movie company
(Paramount I believe) already owned the publishing rights to it so the
woudn't have to pay for it.

Happens a lot. They actually still have to pay for it, but it's done
internally, with "funny money" like most corps do when they are passing
products or services between departments or subsidiaries, which makes the
bottom line on the movie look better.

So? What's wrong with securing permission from the author and paying
the price?

Nothing. For a *limited* time!

Restrictions on use are rare. Get over it.

Not anymore. Restrictions are *inherent* under our current law, from the
moment of creation. You're still looking at this only from the perspective
of music. Do you have cable tv? If your idea of appropriate copyrights had
been upheld in the past you wouldn't be able to watch local channels on
cable, you would have to use a switch box and flip over to your arial to see
the local news.

Listen, what you're arguing here is that Andy Warhol should've gone to
prison for unlicensed use of Campbell's trade mark. Is that really what you
are advocating? Does the public really have no right to their own culture?

I don't see that you're giving him any more rights. I'm not strongly
in favor of extending rights to heirs, but I feel that as long as he
has responsibilities (which may include taking care of heirs after
he's gone) that his song should be a valuable commodity. But that's
too indefinite for any court to decide, so I guess a number which you
consider unreasonable will have to do.

I would be for *total* exclusivity if the term was more appropriate. We
could get rid of the statutory (compulsory) licenses and let the creators
set the price for all use if we knew the content would be available for use
after a known period of time. But at present, the term is totally unknown,
because so far Congress has shown no shame in taking lobby money in exchange
for extending the terms. The records are public, check it out yourself if
you don't believe me. Every single time a copyright bill written by the RIAA
was slated to come up before Congress, they *maxed* their contributions for
the year.

ryanm

"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message
...

And furthermore, how do shorter term limits benefit ANYBODY other than the
largest media distributors? Longer term limits ONLY benefit individuals
and
the corporations who paid those individuals for the exclusive use of their
material. It's one of very few areas where an individual has any power
over
distributors without regard to one's financial clout. This is why our
friends in Silicon Valley and the tech press writers who suck up to them
are
so vehemently opposed to copyright.

We're months into this discussion and you're starting back at the
beginning. I really don't have the energy to start over, but I can recommend
some links and books if you're really interested.

ryanm

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
I thought we were talking about those poor, starving songwriters, not
the greedy corps that suck the life out of them? ; )

If I wrote a song what does this have to do with any corp?

You have to stop dropping in in the middle of the conversation. *Mike*
was talking about corps.

ryanm

ryanm wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1084137522k@trad...

Nor, however, is the liklihood of need. Will you wait 30 years to make
your movie with a song on the jukebox that you were denied permission
to use? I think not. You'll just pick another song.

I'll go back to my previous example, the movie Dazed and Confused. They
couldn't get permission to use the song Dazed and Confused, which was
certainly represenetive of the time period being portrayed, recognizable,
and wasn't actually written by Zeppelin in the first place. Why should they
have been denied the use of this song, which clearly would've had value to
the movie, when Zep already made plenty of money on it (not to mention the
fact that they used someone else's song without license in the first place)?

Because Zeppelin didn't like the movie script.

You see, having rights ALSO gives you the ability to control how your
material is used. And that's a good thing.

Of course, when you're dead, this means that ability is tranferred to
your heirs, and so you wind up with things like Stan Rogers' widow who
considers his work inviolate and is very touchy about how it is used,
often not permitting a lot of things that I think he himself would have
allowed. That's the downside.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

I'll go back to my previous example, the movie Dazed and Confused. They
couldn't get permission to use the song Dazed and Confused, which was
certainly represenetive of the time period being portrayed, recognizable,
and wasn't actually written by Zeppelin in the first place.

I'll agree that it sounds logical to use that song, but I haven't seen
the movie, so this is all I'll say about that.

Why should they
have been denied the use of this song, which clearly would've had value to
the movie, when Zep already made plenty of money on it (not to mention the
fact that they used someone else's song without license in the first place)?

I don't know. You seem to like to do research. Find out why they were
denied use. There must have been a good reason. Maybe they really
weren't denied use, but the owner wanted more money than they were
willing to pay. I don't know of any saleable commodity (like a license
to use a song) that isn't for sale.

Not anymore. Restrictions are *inherent* under our current law, from the
moment of creation. You're still looking at this only from the perspective
of music. Do you have cable tv?

No.

If your idea of appropriate copyrights had
been upheld in the past you wouldn't be able to watch local channels on
cable, you would have to use a switch box and flip over to your arial to see
the local news.

I don't know what the deal is with this (or what it has to do with
copyright), but I assume it has something to do with the cost of
licensing distribution. I remember reading something about home
subscribers to satellite TV not being able to get local channels off
their dish, but that if they asked nicely (and said that they couldn't
get them from the standard broadcast) the disk company would "turn
them on," and for no additional charge. I see that the common dish
system (the one Radio Shack sells) offers a UHF/VHF antenna that fits
on the dish to receive local channels, so I guess at least that
company (The Dish Network?) doesn't retransmit them.


Listen, what you're arguing here is that Andy Warhol should've gone to
prison for unlicensed use of Campbell's trade mark. Is that really what you
are advocating? Does the public really have no right to their own culture?

Was it really unlicensed? Maybe initially, because laws were older,
and less understood back then. But I'm sure that Campbell's has been
well taken care of, and that Warhol & Co. didn't cry too much about
being asked for a piece of their action.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I'll go back to my previous example, the movie Dazed and Confused. They
couldn't get permission to use the song Dazed and Confused

Because Zeppelin didn't like the movie script.

Thank you.

You see, having rights ALSO gives you the ability to control how your
material is used. And that's a good thing.

You see, this is Ryan's objection to the whole thing. Not only do they
have the ability to control the use, but that they have the ability to
do so for such a long time period that when they say "No" it really
means "No, not ever, unless I change my mind."

How does compulsory license fit in here? Is that just music licensed
for music and not music licensed for use with a film or other
syncronization applications?

Oh, and Ryan, have you been following my "Formatting FAT32 from DOS
discussion? I'd love to be able to put an image of the Win98 startup disk on
a CD to distribute along with a book. It's obsolete software, but Microsoft
still owns it, and I'm not even going to attempt to ask their permission. So
ownership of non-music intellectual property is standing in my way, too.
In order for me to be able to use it, it would have to revet to PD in 5 years
or so, and that's too short for anyone. And 30 years would make it too
old to be of value for the application.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article znr1084282775k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:


How does compulsory license fit in here? Is that just music licensed
for music and not music licensed for use with a film or other
syncronization applications?

This is ONLY for mechanicals. If you wish to play a song or arrangement
that someone else has written, they do not have the legal right to deny it.

If you want to modify the song in any way that no longer makes it a direct
cover, or you want to use the song for anything other than live performance
or direct release, compulsory licenses do not apply because you need something
more than just a straight mechanical license.

If you want to use an original recording in a compilation recording or
in a movie, you need rights to the performance as well as the mechanical
rights to the arrangement and music. Compulsory license is not sufficient.

Oh, and Ryan, have you been following my "Formatting FAT32 from DOS
discussion? I'd love to be able to put an image of the Win98 startup disk on
a CD to distribute along with a book. It's obsolete software, but Microsoft
still owns it, and I'm not even going to attempt to ask their permission. So
ownership of non-music intellectual property is standing in my way, too.
In order for me to be able to use it, it would have to revet to PD in 5 years
or so, and that's too short for anyone. And 30 years would make it too
old to be of value for the application.

Knoppix is your friend.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"ryanm" wrote in message

Listen, what you're arguing here is that Andy Warhol should've gone to
prison for unlicensed use of Campbell's trade mark. Is that really what you
are advocating? Does the public really have no right to their own culture?


First, you are confusing trademark law with copyright law. Trademarks
are licensed to prevent knock-offs from being confused with a genuine
product. That was not an issue with Warhol's paintings.

Second, Warhol (and anyone else) had a clear right to use the Campbell
logo in a work of criticism. In fact, the copyright act specifically
mentions criticism, comment, scholarship, research, news reporting or
teaching as examples of fair use. Obviously, lawyers can always sue
over a parody, or anything else, for that matter), but the defendant
has a defense built right into the copyright law.

Peter Rhalter

"ryanm" wrote in message

So we're passing legislation because it's "kind of nice after you've gone senile and
aren't writing songs any more"? Is that really justification for
patently
unconstitutional legislation?

Ryan,
You just can't seem to accept that the copyright laws ARE
constitutional and the Supreme Court has ruled on that. Constitutional
and wise — or even beneficial — are separate concepts. As far as the
LAW goes, your point of view LOST.

Peter Rhalter

Peter Rhalter wrote:

"ryanm" wrote in message

Listen, what you're arguing here is that Andy Warhol should've gone to
prison for unlicensed use of Campbell's trade mark. Is that really what you
are advocating? Does the public really have no right to their own culture?

First, you are confusing trademark law with copyright law. Trademarks
are licensed to prevent knock-offs from being confused with a genuine
product. That was not an issue with Warhol's paintings.

Okay, man, but ryanm wanted to make soup from a copy of the painting,
you dig, and he couldn't do that. So laws must be changed. Otherwise
fatchicks 'n' fatdudes get skinny. Next thing you know we have an ice
age and almost no thermal masses.

Do bacteria have no right to their own culture? Discuss.

--
ha

Peter Rhalter wrote:

"ryanm" wrote in message

Listen, what you're arguing here is that Andy Warhol should've gone to
prison for unlicensed use of Campbell's trade mark. Is that really what you
are advocating? Does the public really have no right to their own culture?

First, you are confusing trademark law with copyright law. Trademarks
are licensed to prevent knock-offs from being confused with a genuine
product. That was not an issue with Warhol's paintings.

Okay, man, but ryanm wanted to make soup from a copy of the painting,
you dig, and he couldn't do that. So laws must be changed. Otherwise
fatchicks 'n' fatdudes get skinny. Next thing you know we have an ice
age and almost no thermal masses.

Do bacteria have no right to their own culture? Discuss.

--
ha