Print

Print


There are still tribal cultures with us today, if quite unlike those
of only a few generations ago. Do members of the tribe who
develop something new based on a traditional form or style,
have the right to the copy rprotection, or does the tribe?

P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Fwd: [A-List] Law professor fires back at
song-swapping lawsuits]


> I think Kate is right about this.  And am I the only one who finds almost
all "singer-songwriters" deluded about their ability to write?  I wish, if
they have a voice, they would sing material written by someone who knows how
and not their own generally-dreary monotonous stuff.  They would do much
better to sing even Berlin or Porter, however dated, than most of the stuff
they imagine they can compose because they can sing.
>
> That means they all need to be paid somehow.
>
> I am open to the claim that the law needs reform.  So many laws do.  But
the notion that, because it is bad, music should just be free makes no sense
at all that I can see.  The only discussion that makes sense is about how to
reform the law to be fair to those who write, compose, sing, as well as
those who listen.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>
> >>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 11/29/08 3:16 PM >>>
> There are many performers who don't tour much.  There are far less
concerts
> today than 10 to 20 years ago.  Performers do count on sales and  royalty
> checks.  And record companies are certainly not going to put out  records
for
> free, but as I stated earlier, there are certainly solutions. I  remember
that
> Metallica fans were really down on Lars after he went after these  small
Internet
> companies for downloading their music.
>
>
> In a message dated 11/29/2008 2:27:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Tom Gray  wrote:
> >
> > --- On Sun, 11/30/08, Carrol Cox  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > As I said in my first  post today, Peter (for a change!) has
> > > a point.
> > >  Performers have always made most of their money through
> > > concerts  rather
> > > than records, so we're really dealing here _only_  with
> > > the record
> > > companies, not the  performers.
> >
> > It is relatively recently that musical performers  began to write their
own
> songs. How would a Cole Porter or an Irving Berlin  support themselves
under
> your system? They only wrrote songs. They did not  perform them.
> >
>
> I wouldn't have the slightest idea -- but since  they're dead and gone we
> don't have to worry about them.
>
> But one  point on the current question, it occurs to me, needs to be
> stated bluntly:  The interests of performers/composers/writers are _not_
> the dsame as the  interests of Music corporations, and in many ways are
> opposed. That is  sloppy, but the general point needs to be kept in mind.
> Moreover,   musicians themselves are differ widly on these questions.
>
> On copyright:  The old u.s. law,  copyright lasting some 56 years, was
> surely  sufficient for the writer and his/her immeidate family. Extending
> it to 70  years past death is simply  grotesque.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
> AOL.com.
>
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000
002)
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1818 - Release Date:
11/28/2008 7:31 PM
>
>