I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just understand----
WHY, exactly, is it offensive in any degree that anyone can (having enough
money and a willing seller) become a holder of copyrights?
The individual artist's rights are NOT abridged just because someone may buy
their publisher's library. The new owner is still bound by the original
contractual agreements. That the artists weren't astute enough when the
contracts were signed, or that the industry may've taken advantage of them,
are different issues altogether.
Or did I miss something?
-Cecil Rigby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Hanley" <i...@nigelhanley.com>
[snip]
That Paul McCartney could own Buddy Holly's music, and more offensively,
Michael Jackson could buy the Beatles' library shows the dichotomy between
the artist's rights and the so-called copyright holder's rights.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
