But the Progress Clause wasn't written to *guarantee* profits, only to
restrict *competition* for the available profits.

So instead of your copy band doing their own recording of Free Bird you want to
be able to put the Skynyrd version on "your" album?



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

EggHd wrote:

Sure, so a one-time, 20 year copyright, after which all music passes
into the public domain. I could handle that.

Why? What is your reasoning behind this? Are you saying that the recording
and the writing and publishing rights go into public domian after 20 years?

What about bands and artists like Bowie, Elevis Costello whos waited all
those years for their masters to revert back to hem. You want to take
that away from them? Weird.

He's gotta get his material from somewhere, and it'd cost less if it
didn't need licesning.

--
ha

It doesn't. You're simply not listening, so it's no surprise that you
misunderstand.

Your problem is you confuse understood with agreeing with you.

Return to flexing for your
disciples and I'll pursue intelligent discourse elsewhere.

Disciples? Is this how you deal with the tantrum of people not agreeing with
you?




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

"EggHd" wrote in message
...

No and also you don't NEED music to live. You don't need to
buy dark side of the moon every month. This comparison doesn't
work for me.

It doesn't have to work for you. The underlying theory is that ideas
cannot be owned. The reason patent terms have been kept short and copyright
terms have been allowed to get longer is because the potential for abuse has
different consequences. Abusing a long patent term could mean the death of
thousands, while abuse of long copyright term just means that products
developed using that copyright are artifically expensive and innovation is
slower. That doesn't negate the underlying theory, however, just because no
one will die directly because of a long copyright term.

So if a fictional band Booger, still gets 250K or more per year
from their catalog that is controlled by a major conglom and
their aftra health insure has always been paid by said conglom
even though it has changed hand 5 times in the last 30 years it
should just be cut off?

Again, the deal they signed with their label is their business, not
mine. Maybe they could write a new album and get another 20 years of support
from the label.

You gian what exaclty?

I gain a stronger public domain, which benefits us all. Either stop
thinking of music copyright as it's own entity, entirely separate from the
rest of copyright law, or start lobbying for a separate kind of copyright to
be set up for music only. Changes made for the music industry affect all
other industries that use copyrights, and in the past 25 years, those
changes have been for the worse, not the better, from the public's
perspective. And that is who these laws exist to serve.

ryanm

Again, the deal they signed with their label is their business, not
mine.

It looks as if you are trying to make it yours.
If said band has re negotiated a couple of time, does that extend the
copyright? You leave out so many factors......


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

"ryanm" wrote:

"EggHd" wrote:
How does a band owning their copyright hurt your competition?

It doesn't. You're simply not listening, so it's no surprise that you
misunderstand. I was encouraged because this conversation *almost* reached a
level that could be considered intelligent discourse, but I guess I
should've known better. It is usenet, after all. Return to flexing for your
disciples and I'll pursue intelligent discourse elsewhere.

Ryan,

Look, let me make this very clear:

First, I happen to like both you and EggHd, but when it comes to this stuff
Ryan, you and I are "small fish in a little pond" compared to EggHd. He doesn't
need "disciples" - but he does have a lot of people here who respect him for
what he's done in this business, over a period of decades. I'd be thrilled to
have just one or two of his credits.

Yes, you have a lot of opinions, and there's some validity to your arguments,
but if I want an assessment of what's going on in the "real world" of the music
business, EggHd would be one of the first people I would turn to.

Ryan, please don't turn this into a ****ing match with EggHd; you'll eventually
lose. Even with my advanced years (and all my "supposed expertise"), when EggHd
speaks, I listen. I may be 67, but I'm not stupid. Ryan, I know you aren't
stupid either. Think about what doors you may be shutting.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

First, I happen to like both you and EggHd
ere what's great about RAP. There are a lot of people with different
backgrounds who post here.

I look for Scot D and Mike R for help on many things I do not understand that
they do. Hell, I email Scott and call Mike when I need info that is above my
knowledge base.

Harvey is the pope for many reasons. He has a varied background from designed
speakers, to amps we all used, to songs, to running a studio and using gear we
buy on his recommendation alone.

I ask Jay Frigelleto for digital advice on a monthly basis.

Scott Frasier uses methods and gear I don't. I want to know what he thinks of
things.

Ted Spencer. Roger Norman. Hank is always there for anyone. David Morgan.
Will Milo. These are people who can give us all insight on how they get the job
done.

I am a lucky hard working stiff. I have been blessed to have had songs
published and cut, engineer and produce some of my heros (and people I don't
like). I have managed some pretty cool acts, done A&R and now have my own
company that I have built a nice eclectic roster with.

This is a great place to come and share ideas, not try and cram them down
someone's throat.

Notice Harvey says I have great credits. That doesn't mean I'm any good. I
just means I have been around.





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

EggHd wrote:

Notice Harvey says I have great credits.

Yeah, and he's right about that.

That doesn't mean I'm any good.

You're wrong about that.

I just means I have been around.

And then some, but the big picture is, you didn't get dizzy.

--
ha

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had
declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the
heavens, then Congress's declaration could well have been an
unconstitutional "taking" of property without compensation. The Court
acknowledged that "it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of
the
land extended to the periphery of the universe." But Justice Douglas had
no
patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of years
of
property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court,

'[The] doctrine has no place in the modern world.

Does the right to earn a living with one's talents also have no place in
the modern world? If someone's talent is as a songwriter why should that be
different than that of a carpenter? A carpenter has the right to earn a
living with his talents & abilities - if you're a carpenter do I have the
right to keep you from your jobsite? Ryan, this is the same kind of issue -
maybe technically it's not "STEEEEEEEELING" as you put it, but to say that
is splitting hairs, anyway - the point is, it's preventing someone from
earning their living.

So let's go back to the carpenter analogy... you're a carpenter and I'm a
300-lb defensive lineman - you work five days a week, but all of a sudden
every Tuesday & Thursday I show up at your jobsite & stand in your way so
you can't get in. You move & I move with you, you try & run around me, but
I'm too fast - you can't push me over, I'm too big, and the frustrating
thing is you can't even have me arrested because I don't assault you in any
way... I don't hit you, grab you, or anything like that, I just stay in
your way no matter what you do. You're now losing 40% of your income. Ah,
who gives a ****, you make enough money anyway, right? You can get by on
60% of your former income, can't you? And your kids? Well, the spoiled
little *******s will just have to send themselves to college.

Now, there's no law against 'standing in someone's way', but if this were
to happen to you you'd probably be thinking: "maybe there oughta be".
--


Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com