About Us

Its Me

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:01:38 PM UTC-4, Keyser SÃ¶ze wrote:
Bill wrote:
Keyser SÃ¶ze wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:00:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/16/19 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 09:36:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/15/19 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:03:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/15/2019 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:42:06 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/15/19 11:53 AM, wrote:

BTW I do think this copyright thing is out of control. Most of the
money goes to rich old fat men, not the performers. Very few of the
people you think of when you hear a song, actually own the rights.

Copyright, as applied to pop music, is very complicated. While most
performers who write their own songs may own the rights to that song,
they don't necessarily own the recorded rights to that song. Those
rights are owned by the recording studio/label. The studio/label may pay
the group a sum, even a very substantial sum, to "make" a record/CD, and
that sum may be all the group receives, even if the sales of the
finished product make millions. That's one of the reasons why pop
performers go on tour...*they* keep the proceeds, not the label.

Some bigtime performers, not many, have been able to negotiate a better
deal on CD sales and radio performances, and few ended up owning their
own labels, but these are the exceptions. Tom Petty did this, The Eagles
own or owned their own label after their careers took off, and I might
recall that Bon Jovi or some other "Joisey" performer owns his recording
rights.

The "rich old fat men" to whom you refer put up the money to make
recordings and to pay the talent. Are you implying they are not entitled
to a return on their investment?

How come my patent is only good for 20 years, but the copyright is good
forever?

Typically 75 years

My understanding is "life of author plus 70 years".

Yup that is what I saw but other criteria might get it up to 120 years
... which is even more ridiculous when you look at patents.

Patented "things" typically have a relatively short shelf or economic
life until they are replaced by "things" with more advanced technology.
An item that has a copyright might not be replaceable, as it were, and
have a much longer life of value...books, paintings, music, slogans, et
cetera.

You haven't explained why.
What is it that is of such enduring value in a scribble on a cocktail
napkin or some random noise made on a guitar that makes it more
valuable than an invention that revolutionizes the world?
Trust me, "We all lived on a Yellow Submarine" did nothing to improve
mankind but it will still be drawing royalties into the 22nd century
if Ringo can hold out another 10 years.

Why have you spent so much time and effort, if not money, to collect
music you like and play it around the house and outdoors? You may not
want to admit it, but "the arts" of all sorts are important to you, and
they are important to their creators and their heirs, too.

I'm sure this bit from the Guardian will annoy you. I hope so.

After 68 years, Steinbeck's family wins back the rights to his greatest
works
Heirs regain control of works despite deal signed by the author in 1930s

Oliver Burkeman in New York
@oliverburkeman

Tue 13 Jun 2006 19.22 EDT
First published on Tue 13 Jun 2006 19.22 EDT

An American judge intervening in a long-simmering feud has ruled that
the rights to John Steinbeck's most famous novels - including The Grapes
of Wrath and Of Mice and Men - should be seized from his publisher and
handed to his descendants.

In a case that could have significant consequences for families of
artists who fought for creative control, New York judge Richard Owen
ruled that Penguin Books must forfeit the copyright of 10 of Steinbeck's
works, even though the novelist had signed the rights away in 1938.

The court battle pitched the novelist's granddaughter, Blake Smyle, and
his son Thomas Steinbeck against Penguin Books and Paramount Pictures.
Thomas Steinbeck had alleged that he was the victim of "a 30-year
conspiracy to deprive John Steinbeck's blood heirs".

The judge argued that American copyright law acknowledges the reality
that young authors could not know in advance "the high stature they
would attain" and that it was therefore fair to allow them or their
descendants to renegotiate copyright agreements.

He based his decision in part on a law passed in 1998 after the death of
the singer and American congressmen Sonny Bono, which gives added powers
to the descendants of original creators.

The question is how long should you have to pay, particularly when a
patent is less than 20 years.
Since most of this money flows to those greed corporations you are
always railing on about, I am surprised you think they should be
making money for 120 years based on the sweat of an artist that
exploited that long ago.

To the artists, in perpetuity.

Why has my patent expired?

"How do you feel about being an asshole for most of your life, asshole?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Discover and listen to the latest music online by music.	Isioma Rok	General	0	November 4th 16 06:29 AM
New iPhone...	F.O.A.D.	General	63	November 6th 13 01:53 PM
To iphone or not to iphone	Frogwatch[_2_]	General	16	May 4th 10 10:58 PM
AIS iPhone App...	Bob	Cruising	2	November 16th 09 04:10 AM

Menu

About Us