Re the piracy issue....I bought a CD duplicator yesterday and there's a 
notice on the top of it saying "Do Not Violate Copyrights".  Haven't 
violated one so far, the damn thing won't even power up. ($49.99 from a 
Chinese store on Spadina..now I gotta go back into the city to take it 
back..serves me right.)

dl

David Lewis wrote:
> It is fascinating to contrast the Gowers report with the way the media is
> reporting this story. In the report, the authors use graphs and cite all
> kinds of examples as to how copyright extensions tend to chill innovation
> and to discourage historical preservation of recordings. It's VERY thorough.
>
> Whereas the CNN story, from the first, wants us to feel sorry that Mick
> Jagger will be losing his royalties for recordings due to the new law. But
> that won't happen for at least seven years, as Mick didn't make records
> until 1963. And it's not as though he has no other avenues for revenue (are
> you kidding?) or that revenue from what he recorded in 1963 would generate
> much income anyway. Mick still gets the revenue for the songwriting, so
> what's the big deal? 
>
> David N. Lewis
> Assistant Classical Editor, All Music Guide
>
> "Music expresses what one cannot say, but about which one cannot remain
> silent." - Victor Hugo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen C Leggett
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Britain: Gowers Report on Intellectual Property
>
> CNN story: "U.K. No Music Copyright Extension"
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/06/uk.copyright.reut/
>  
> Actual report
> http://media.ft.com/cms/b30682f8-8531-11db-b12c-0000779e2340.pdf
>
>