Cecil Rigby wrote:
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?
Your phrase "willing seller" is part of the problem here --
when Buddy Holly was a youngster just starting out he had a
choice to either make the records or not make the records.
But if he chose to make the records, he had to sign away his
copyrights to the record label's publisher. And he may well
have been willing, having been told "you'll receive 10% of
all the profits your music brings us. Imagine it, you'll be
rich!" And then the record label accountants fudged things
so that there weren't any profits. So "willing seller" be
damned, it's the cheating that goes on after the "willing
selling" that is where the offensive behavior happens.
I believe at least in Germany (I'm sure someone will correct
me if I'm wrong) that copyrights can not be given away or
sold. They remain with the creator for whatever term the
law says. They can be licensed to others, but when that
license expires, the original creator still owns the copyrights.
Compare that to the U.S. where, despite all the arguments to
the contrary, intellectual property is just like physical
property in many regards and copyrights can be given away,
sold or traded, and once the original owner gives, sells or
trades the copyright, the only way he/she can regain the
copyright is to negotiate with whomever is the owner at the
time.
Several major band composers in the U.S., Ed Madden and John
Edmunds, have spent quite a few years regaining copyrights
from the publishers who had decided to let their band music
go permanently out of print, and Madden and Edmunds are both
making their music available once again.
The offensive part of the comment, in my opinion at least,
is that people should be able to take advantage of
underinformed, inexperienced people who couldn't afford a
lawyer (can you name 5 teenagers who can plunk down
$200/hour for legal consultation? I can't!), and Michael
Jackson shouldn't be able to the Beatles copyrights anymore
than Paul McCartney should be able to own the Buddy Holly
copyrights (which I find equally offensive.)
Just because something is legal doesn't make it inoffensive.
And it's all well and good to say "buyer beware" and "those
kids should have gotten legal advice" but that doesn't make
the reality any less offensive. Just because someone can
legally cheat others doesn't mean they should do so. And
those early rock and roll stars were certainly cheated, and
many still are.
--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
