Print

Print


I don't know who you are, but this does not seem to be your field.

Paul D wrote:
> Copyright laws are designed to allow the Creator to financially benefit 
> from their work. 

FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME.

> I'm not sure how you can ethically separate a songwriter 
> from his royalties for any length of time. 

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA YOU DO IT BY READING THE CONSTITUTION OF 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.*

"SECTION EIGHT - Powers of Congress*

"The Congress shall have Power . . .

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for 
limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective 
Writings and Discoveries;"

A REAL understanding of this clause of The Constitution shows that it 
was understood by our founding fathers -- many of whom were writers and 
inventors -- that unless "the exclusive Right" was "for limited Times", 
society and the country will not truly progress and benefit.  It was a 
long established principle in law that the time period of Public Domain 
was MORE IMPORTANT than the time period of copyright or patent.  The 
works are created FOR the PUBLIC DOMAIN, but prior to giving it to the 
public, the creator will benefit.  That time period is the BAIT to get 
things to be created.  But the eventual path of ALL creations were meant 
for the Public Domain.  Industry money and lobbys have been able to 
trick our recent congress to misunderstanding these longstanding legal 
and social concepts.


> Its like finding a gold mine 
> and only benefitting for 7 years; after which you turn it over for "public 
> use". You found the gold. You keep it. Period.
>   

BALONEY.  Haven't you ever heard of  Eminent Domain???   It is in the 
Fifth Amendment  *   
"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 
<http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR> 12/15/1791.*
" . . .  nor shall private property be taken for public use, without 
just compensation."

This means that if there IS  "just compensation", private property CAN 
be taken for public use.  It happens all the time. 

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/F0EE4223-3796-4B58-BB4BDED46C36F6B1/alpha/E/
"The power of the federal or state government to take private property 
for a public purpose, even if the property owner objects. The Fifth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the government to 
take private property if the taking is for a public use and the owner is 
"justly compensated" (usually, paid fair market value) for his or her 
loss. A public use is virtually anything that is sanctioned by a federal 
or state legislative body, but such uses may include roads, parks, 
reservoirs, schools, hospitals or other public buildings. Sometimes 
called condemnation, taking or expropriation."

> Royalty fees are trivial. Like 10 cents per sale on a song.
>
> http://moneywisdom-gold.blogspot.com 
>
>
>   
It is not the cost that is at issue, it is the restriction of use.  
SONGS cannot be restricted from use by any other person or company -- 
there is compulsary use written into the law.  If I want to record your 
song, you MUST let me.   But recordings are not included.  If a company 
wishes to restrict any use of a recording EVEN BY THE CREATOR, they can 
restrict the use.  Except by special contract, PERFORMERS DO NOT OWN 
THEIR RECORDINGS. 

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]