Print

Print


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>   Oddly, it seems that copyright extension could be a way of telling us that
ideas of the past have "value."
>
Sadly, no! What it tells the ordinary member of western society is
the following:

Some corporate entity/group thereof sees...or thinks they see...a way
to make money through their "unlimited ownership" of the sonically-
defined "history of recorded music" in <wherever>.

Since the above-defined ("ordinary...") parties have no interest in
accessing the thus-"protected" things, the concept takes on the interest
awarded a dispute about land-title inheritance in Lower Slobbovia...!

It is only when if our mythical "everyman," Joe Gabroni, discovers
that he can't obtain a copy of a favourite sound recording of his
youth-hood...because the copyright thereto belongs to Acme Global
Megacorporation, UNlimited, and they aren't interested in reissuing
it because only Joe G and his three buddies will buy copies, but
that the aforementioned corporate entity is NOT about to grant
permission for anyone else to reissue the recording, for fear of
establishing legal precedents that would allow total strangers to
issue material that is currently being reissued for substantial
profit by Acme...usw...well...

Our hero will probably merely shake his head, mutter to himself
something like "Them as has, gits..." and re-check used-recording
emporia for a used original copy...!

More importantly, the valuation/duration battle for copyrights
to extant sound recordings will work against any personal
(non-monetary) value being attached to recordings of the past
simply by reducing the opportunities for folks to hear these!

Steven C. Barr