Forgive me for putting this in very simple terms, but I think the whole issue in many of the postings, has gone away from what exactly copyright is. I think professor Loren herself amazingly seems to misunderstand some important and basic facts.

For songwriters, the vast majority of whom earn very little or nothing at all from their works, copyright is their protection. It by law protects their ownership of that work and rightly so. It's as simple as that, and for a long period of time after the death of the composer, monies earned from that work rightly go to the next of kin. Remember that there have been many cases where a work only became successful long after the death of the composer so it's only right that the family should benefit.

If someone composes a song, a piece of music, a lyric, a poem or whatever, they and only they, or the company to whom they sign over certain rights own it. It is their property. Anyone who wants to take it from them, or is not willing to pay for the pleasure it, or who makes changes to it without the author's permission, or puts their own name to it is abusing the rights of the one who created it.

There may well be other areas of copyright that could be looked at, but as far as the works of songwriters and composers are concerned, and that is the area in which I have an interest in, their rights should always continue to be protected.

Ger