The copyright police

Subject: RE: The copyright police
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jun 99 - 07:15 PM

4. They make it difficult for people to have access to songs, and that causes all but the most commercial songs to die within a very short time. Songs are available in recorded and printed form only for that very short time that they will make considerable income for the publishers. Once that time is over, the songs disappear. Those of us who want to play with old songs for the fun of it have no access to them. Professionals who may want to revive a song and make money for the songwriter also have limited access - if they can't find a song, they won't use it.
So, the songs die.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: The copyright police
From: Bert
Date: 25 Jun 99 - 05:38 PM

Why do we object?

1. The copyright police skim so much off for themselves and their favored artists. Most artists get little or nothing.
2. They intimidate companies who use music. A bookstore near here used to let local performers sing at their bookstore. They had a rule that they must only sing original material. ASCAP threatened them with a lawsuit, even though they were using NO ASCAP songs, so the bookstore stopped the service.
3. There is no control over them, they can do as they please, distribute money as they please (or not distribute if they so choose).

Bert.

Subject: The copyright police
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 99 - 05:21 PM

There seems to be a bit of animus against the copyright police. But copyright is (a) the natural reward of the creator (Germano/French/Napoleonic legal theory) (b) part of a bargain with the creator to reward him for the benefits his creation bestows on society (English theory and/or (c) provided for in the constitution (US theory) (d) required by international treaties.

If there were no copyright, authors would starve for they would have no way to earn from their work. It is the power of the authors to prohibit use of their work which supports the market value. A mere right of remuneration would necessarily produce lower earnings. So why do people object when "the copyright police" object to the reproduction of copyright works without payment? Should we care here at the digital tradition, for the traditional is by definition out of copyright and not subject to the hands of the copyright police?

Over to you guys (of all genders without distinction or preference).