Hey now, I never "tell" anyone to do anything on this list. "Suggest" is my preferred term. ;)

35 years is enough time to make your bones off a song. It should go into the PD after that. However, 
one thing that crossed my mind is, you shouldn't be able to lift phrases and words wholesale from a 
PD song and get a copyright for it. How does that get enforced? What's "wholesale lifting" in the 
legal sense? Gray area!

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Morning reading: One take on patents, somewhat related to discussions we've 
had on copyrights, plus a take on copyrights

> Tom Fine originally told us to read:
> More directly related to what we discuss on this list:
> This article talks about the RECORDING ARTISTS being able to recover their copyrights from the 
> record companies after 35 years.  The recording artists who potentially would care more about the 
> recordings than the record companies -- which usually have no relationship to the company they had 
> recorded for in the first place.
> On 8/16/2011 1:48 PM, Bob Olhsson wrote:
>> From: Thatcher Graham " Doesn't the ARSC typically argue that copyright
>> is already too harsh..."
>> I'm afraid lots of ARSC people want to exploit recordings that they didn't
>> pay for creating. As I said, the rationalizations for weakening copyright
>> are endless. "Preservation" is a pretty common one.
> Tell me, Bob, exactly what did Sony pay for in creating the recordings that were made by Victor or 
> Columbia in, say 1915, that they don't even have copies of in their own archive???   Tell me. 
> This was even before Mr. Sony himself was born.  If it were a BOOK it would be in Public Domain. 
> If it were a MOVIE it would be in Public Domain.  If it was almost any other country in the world 
> it would have been in Public Domain since 1965, and if it was a sound recording made in 1960 it 
> would be in Public Domain now.  Just because in 1975 we had some of the stupidest and easiest 
> legislators to buy we have a totally asinine 186 year copyright term for sound recordings that 
> when today's legislators are told this they are flabbergasted -- until they are bought by the 
>> Unfortunately the consequence will be (some would argue already is) lots
>> worse new recordings in the future. I think it's really magical thinking to
>> suggest otherwise. Do we really want a world where the only quality choice
>> will be historical recordings?
>> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> This makes no sense.  The recording industry has already realized that the gravy train is gone and 
> has cut back on expenses -- and there has been change in the copyright term!  If the companies 
> somehow think that they can no longer exploit a recording for a term of NINETY-FIVE YEARS, but 
> maybe only 35 or 50 or 75, would they spend a dime less on the "quality" of their current 
> productions because of the copyright term length?????  You know darn well that all they are 
> concerned with is sales in the first months of release.  Record producers know that if they keep 
> snorting coke they won't be around when the record hits "back catalog" so who cares?
> Besides, the article was about the RECORDING ARTISTS getting control of the recordings, something 
> that many of the current performers already want and therefor are bypassing the sham of getting a 
> recording contract with the the major rip-off labels.  Are you saying that only the major rip-off 
> labels know how to make quality recordings and that is why you feel quality has already gone 
> down???
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]