|
Grex > Music3 > #41: The Crash in the Music Business |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
dbratman
|
|
response 14 of 71:
| 
Oct 3 19:10 UTC 2001 |
"Happy Birthday" is a lot newer than "Clementine", that's why.
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 15 of 71:
|
Oct 3 19:12 UTC 2001 |
I don't understand any of this enough to verify the accuracy, but there is
a table available here:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
"When Works Pass into the Public Domain" Includes material from new Term
Extension Act, PL 105-298
|
orinoco
|
|
response 16 of 71:
|
Oct 3 19:13 UTC 2001 |
Past a certain number of years after the creator's death, material becomes
public domain. However, new laws are occasionally passed which extend that
certain number of years.
Conveniently enough, these laws are always timed such that Walt Disney's
copyrights never expire. Funny how that works...
Really, though, I shouldn't be explaining this, because I'm sure someone who
knows more than me will come along and render this post irrelevant. <g>
|
orinoco
|
|
response 17 of 71:
|
Oct 3 19:14 UTC 2001 |
Wow. I've been rendered pre-emptively irrelevant, even. Mickey slipped in.
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 18 of 71:
|
Oct 3 19:22 UTC 2001 |
Here's another page that has an simple message:
Sound Recording Rule of Thumb:
There are NO sound recordings in the Public Domain.
http://www.pdinfo.com/record.htm - The Public Domain Information Project.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 71:
|
Oct 3 19:49 UTC 2001 |
Good information in both #15 & #18. Check again on recorded music in 2067.
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 71:
|
Oct 3 20:21 UTC 2001 |
"Happy Birthday" also has a weird story to it. The melody itself is something
like 120 years old or so, but it was only formally copyrighted after the
family of the "composer" sued. "Happy birthday" weren't the original words;
they were the words of the new version being sued over. I believe the original
words were "Merry Christmas to you, ..."
But this entire anecdote is from memory because I'm too lazy right now to look
it up online. =} So I could have mashed it up terribly.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 21 of 71:
|
Oct 3 23:50 UTC 2001 |
(I thought it was "Good morning to you.")
|
russ
|
|
response 22 of 71:
|
Oct 4 00:17 UTC 2001 |
Re #9: What DVD is still going to be playable in 95 years?
Even if the copyright expires, the anti-circumvention clauses of
the DMCA do not. Once you can no longer buy a DVD player, you
will forever lose access to the content on your DVDs because
circumventing the access controls to play them remains a felony
even after 95 years. Even hacking something to let you skip past
commercials (something that DVDs can and do forbid) is probably
enough to get you tossed into prison, especially if you have the
temerity to tell the public how to do it for themselves.
Congress is busy screwing the consumer (citizen) at the behest
of the RIAA and MPAA. I love my country, I'm *disgusted* with
my government.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 71:
|
Oct 4 00:23 UTC 2001 |
Are you certain that the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA
really apply to uncopyrighted material? That sounds suspect to me..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 24 of 71:
|
Oct 4 02:57 UTC 2001 |
"Good Morning To You" sounds about right to me also. Then again, there could
well be dozens of versions...
|
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 71:
|
Oct 4 15:28 UTC 2001 |
Re #23: If I remember correctly, the anti-circumvention measures
of the DMCA apply to the *potential* use of technology, not
the actual use. Sort of like making it illegal to own matches
because they *could* be used to commit arson.
The free dissemination of information is a cornerstone of a
democratic society. This includes the right to pass along
information which you receive to others, possibly by making
multiple copies. The copyright laws were originally intended
as a limited exception to protect the rights of authors to
receive reasonable compensation for their creative efforts
by granting a *temporary* exclusive license to reproduce and
sell their work. If I remember correctly, when I was younger,
copyrights on published material were valid for something like
27 years, renewable *once* for an equal period of time. After
that, the work went into the public domain.
The modern trend to make copyrights longer and longer is
certainly not in the public interest, and hardly protects the
original authors, who will almost certainly have been long
dead by the time the copyright on their stuff expires (if
indeed it ever does). Whose interests do perpetually-
extended copyrights serve, then? It's pretty clear to me
that they serve the interests of extremely wealthy publishers
who have the power to buy Congressional votes. Laws like
the DMCA and the proposed SSSCA are, in my opinion, are
horrible inventions intended only to provide tools for the
enforcement of these undemocratic perpetual franchises.
Can you say "We *really* need campaign finance reform"? I
knew you could!
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 26 of 71:
|
Oct 4 15:35 UTC 2001 |
Very well "said," John. I agree.
|
brighn
|
|
response 27 of 71:
|
Oct 4 18:13 UTC 2001 |
"Good Morning" sounds correct to me, too. I threw out "Merry Christmas"
because I thought it scanned the same as "Happy Birthday," but it didn't sound
right at the time.
|
polygon
|
|
response 28 of 71:
|
Oct 4 20:35 UTC 2001 |
Yes, the information on the page cited in #15 looks accurate to me.
Very much agreed with both russ and remmers here.
|
drew
|
|
response 29 of 71:
|
Oct 4 21:38 UTC 2001 |
"We *really* need" requirement of direct popular YES vote to impliment do's
and don'ts. I for one can't imagine something like the DMCA getting that kind
of approval.
|
polygon
|
|
response 30 of 71:
|
Oct 4 21:46 UTC 2001 |
Re 29. Unfortunately, I can. And worse things.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 31 of 71:
|
Oct 4 22:09 UTC 2001 |
Direct popular vote of laws is, as a general policy, a really bad
idea. What Congress can be convinced to fall for is as nothing
compared to what the general public can be convinced to fall for.
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 71:
|
Oct 4 23:06 UTC 2001 |
Anyone who doubts #31 should take a look at the content of legislation
passed by popular vote in the last 20 years in California.
|
drew
|
|
response 33 of 71:
|
Oct 5 01:29 UTC 2001 |
So how is it easier to buy 200 million people than to buy only 435 people?
Even so, I would propose it as a third requirement *on top of* getting through
the House and Senate.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 34 of 71:
|
Oct 5 02:36 UTC 2001 |
re #33:
> So how is it easier to buy 200 million people than to buy only 435?
Who needs to "buy" them when such a huge percentage of television and
radio stations are owned by only a few media conglomerates? Besides,
you'd only need to influence a majority of the voting population, which
is a much smaller number than 200 million..
|
russ
|
|
response 35 of 71:
|
Oct 5 02:56 UTC 2001 |
Repent! The end is near! polygon agree with me! ;-)
I don't think we need campaign finance reform to fix this matter.
A simple thing, like defining a Constitutional limit to the term
of copyright and defining fair use that cannot be limited by
either legally-backed technology or contract, would do the job.
I think a term of 28 years would be good. I've never been able
to keep collecting paychecks on work 28 years after I did it;
that ought to be enough for anyone.
|
brighn
|
|
response 36 of 71:
|
Oct 5 03:07 UTC 2001 |
(Russ, Larry agreed with me in the same week. It could either mean he's
getting soft, or we're both starting to make some degree of sense. No comment
on whic it is, or some combination thereof. ;} )
|
polygon
|
|
response 37 of 71:
|
Oct 5 04:16 UTC 2001 |
Re 35. Oh, come on, you and I agree on lots of things.
Re 36. So are you going to agree with me and russ on copyright? :-)
I thought not!
|
brighn
|
|
response 38 of 71:
|
Oct 5 05:01 UTC 2001 |
#37> I don't know, I haven't been paying enough attention to what you've been
saying. ;} On the comment you've made a few times, that the current copyright
law is absurdly complex, silly, and dysfunctional but basically allowing
copyrights to be extended ad nauseaum, I agree. I'm not sure what your
specific suggested solution is, if you'd care to summarize, I'll register
agreement or disagreement. =}
I think thing sshould be copyrighted a reasonable amount of time, say, ten
years from initial publication or twenty years from initial production,
whichever comes first. Something like that. And none of this "it's not
copyrighted till the author decides to submit it, and only then does the clock
start running," or whatever it was you said (it's late, my memory's rusty).
From what I've seen, I don't recall ever being in enough disagreement with
you on the subject to sit up and comment. ;}
|