Not true. The music publishing industry recaptured some copyrights
(Debussy, Ravel) and those publishing scores and parts (Kalmus, for example)
had to withdraw them when the new extension went into effect.
Sonny (Sony?) Bono may have been a nice guy but this terminal greed to which
his name has become attached is not doing much good for his memory.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright wrongs: we can't let the music industry
suits stifle creativity
>> > I'm glad to hear there's some outrage somewhere. Is anyone at least
>> > whether extended copyrights would apply only to new or current
> recordings or
>> > those made after a certain date, or whether everything would now be
> covered for
>> > 95 years including all those recordings now in the PD (in which case,
>> > better look for a new job)?
> Basically, once something has entered the public domain, one can't
> renew any restrictions upon it! Anyone infringing copyright would
> only have to state they did so whilst the work was in the public
> domain (and the infringement was thus legal!).
> RIAA, of course, seeing the first recordins of Elvis Presley
> (still cash cows for them) would like to see copyright extended,
> laws on infringement tightened (how about public decapitation?)
> and their monopoly on musical culture strengthened...and, as my
> song says, "money talks...)...but, once the cat is out of the
> bag, there is nothing else to do but try and find homes for
> the kittens!
> (speaking of which...)
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005