To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
1 messages


21 Feb 15 - 09:20 PM (#3688779)
Subject: Copyright...humbug!
From: Joe Offer

Subject: Copyright......humbug!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 10:26 AM

"Over 100 years ago, before Thomas Edison invented the technology that lead to the recording and movies industries, the music industry in this country was controlled by a small group in NYC.
They bought songs cheaply and then collected money from entertainers for the right to perform these songs.
They used the law to keep their money coming in and made lots of money with their monopoly on popular music in this country.
The publishing industry was pretty much the same....
They took advantage of the technology of printing to it's fullest extent and made a boatload of money by controlling other peoples creative output.
Thomas Edison made the light bulb into a viable product and after he was making enough money to attract attention he was taken to court by those trying to take that money.
This legal battle raged on for a long time and was one the most hotly contested inventions of the 19th century.
After all, everyone could find a use for a light bulb and look at how many even the poorest person uses daily.

After Thomas Edison invented the film projector and built the whole chain of technology that allowed films to be produced he used the same legal mechamisms that were used against him to try to make his profit from his creative works.
He lost.
The infringers moved the movie industry to California, a failed development called Hollywood, in order to avoid paying Thomas Edison the money they legally owed him for using the technology invented by his company.
They cheated him.
Defied the courts.
All to avoid paying a small percentage of their profits to Tommy.
When Thomas Edison invented the technology of recording sounds the same sort of thing happened.

So, these days whenever I hear about the music and film industries using the law to harass and extort money from people over copyright issues because the modern digital technology allows one to copy anything digital for very, very little money I see the blatant hypocrisy of it all and then go pirate a movie or music album and think of old Tommy the Great!

We should NOT respect their copyrights, court pleading, or laugh at their screams of "ethics" or "morality" regarding their "right" to collect money for popular entertainment that one can acquire easily on the internut.
Good movies make boatloads of money withing a couple of weeks such that a really popular movies makes 10 times or more what was spent to make the movie.
Do they need to make money for the next FIFTY YEARS every time someone obtains a copy or plays it publicly in order to stay in business?
Many of these companies are the very same companies that went to great lengths to screw Thomas out of HIS money.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot they demand others do not do as they did.

So, the next time you watch a movie with the old FBI copyright warning, keep in mind that was put there by an industry that STOLE from someone else but now is using the fullest extent of the law to stop YOU from doing the same to them."

So I shall continue with delight to download music and films.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 10:56 AM

Fully agree Bonzo.

Dave H

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: John P
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

I'm sure your employers will be glad to know that you don't think people should get paid for going to work. I don't care for large corporations, and I'm aware that they rig the laws to benefit themselves, but turning your dislike of them into a blanket decision to ignore copyrights may be going over the top. If I go to the work and expense of recording an album, I expect to be paid for my work. Recording an album is me going to work. You enjoying the fruits of my labor without paying for the album is me going to work and not getting paid. I really think you should let your employers know that you don't think you should expect to get paid for your labor.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM

Right on, John.

Bonzo, your post is just a bunch of alibis and rationalizing for doing something you know is not right.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 01:56 PM

I know that of course, but do the labour party?

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 02:02 PM

What has US law or piracy got to do with English law? Look up 1709.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Musket
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 02:36 PM

I suppose finding some irrelevant moral justification for criminal theft is better than just doing it without anything above base instinct.

I suppose that's also the difference between Labour and others, as you bring the subject up.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Stanron
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 04:06 PM

Edison invented the Kinetoscope, not the cinema as we know it. It was a single long loop of film that could be viewed by only one person at a time, looking down into a closed cabinet. The camera was so large it couldn't be moved and used 48 frames per second. It was the Lumiere Brothers in France who invented a 16 frame per second portable system which could be projected onto a screen.

These two links have more info.



Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 05:24 PM

Or, to put it another way, Bonzo is a moron.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 05:38 PM

I've spent much of the last few months tracking holders of copyrights to songs that are fifty to ninety years old. Some of these songs, I won't be able to use because I can't find the publisher or can't make contact. It seems a shame that we won't be able to use some good songs because we can't find the copyright holder.
Seems like there ought to be a better, fairer way.


Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: GUEST,# Attn Joe Offer--did you pick up on this o
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 07:01 PM

Subject: RE: Lyr Req: Peace of the River (G Gosling, V Wood)
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 09:31 AM

Sorry, saw you've tried that.


Copyright is with

Hal Leonard Corporation since 2001.

I found a piece of sheet music and that copyright notice was there. Says they also have the International copyright.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 07:09 PM

There is no such thing as "international copyright".

Proper Berne countries have procedures for "orphan works".

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 07:17 PM

I guess the page I quoted should have said universal, not international.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 08:49 PM

Hi, # - where did you find the Hal Leonard copyright?

When I see Hal Leonard copyrights, I tend to ignore them. Now I'm working on the Rise Again songbook, which will be published by Hal Leonard. It was Hal Leonard's intention to slap a copyright on every song that didn't have a specific copyright, but we negotiated a compromise with them and they will put "arr. copyright Hal Leonard 2015."

Hal Leonard is a prolific publisher of fakebooks and other song collections. They take a risk on every song they publish where they can't find a publisher to sign a license, and then they have to defend challenges in court. If we can't find proof that a song is in the public domain or find a publisher to sign a license, Hal Leonard is rightly reluctant to publish the song at all (and thus some really good songs don't get published). The CD producers are the same way. The one I deal with most is Oasis - if I can't provide a license or proof the song is in the public domain, they're not likely to want to include the song on a CD they publish.


Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Dec 14 - 09:19 PM

Can't remember Joe. However, it was on sheet music and that notation was at the bottom. May have been Google Images. Can't really remember.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 28 Dec 14 - 01:40 AM

I blame the Father of the Electron Age© Samuel Morse for Thomas Edison (who sued Tesla, who sued Marconi, who sued Sarnoff... … … ... who sued Steve Jobs.) But that's just media, nothing to do with content. NY-Tin Pan Alley-Broadway publishing owes everything to Vauxhall Gardens and swampier surrounds.

Today's content pirates and producers are both wimps. When I was your age, etc. etc...

Joe: Might be a good place to start for the Hal Leonard copyright:

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Dec 14 - 03:43 AM

Guest#. Copyright subsists in each jurisdiction under and in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction. International copyright conventions require signatory states to grant protection under the laws of those signatory states to unpublished works of authors from other signatory jurisdictions and published works first published in other signatory jurisdictions. Trust me, I'm a lawyer and UK copyright haw been my speciality since the 1970s - and a fair bit of non-UK copyright law has passed under my eyes. .

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Dec 14 - 04:18 AM

Thanks, Phil - yeah, that's one of those books where Hal Leonard puts copyright statements like that. It ain't proof they own anything.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Tradsinger
Date: 28 Dec 14 - 05:24 AM

In the case of songs where you can't trace ownership, you can always publish with the caveat that you have made every effort, etc and then see if someone comes back to you claiming copyright.


Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Dec 14 - 08:23 PM

If you write a song, you possess copyright as of that instant. Proving it is another matter, but doesn't require any kind of formal registrations, just an email to yourself asserting it is enough, on something like gmail or yahoo mail. ( better than the old sealed registered envelope method, because it can't be hocussed, and it's free.

There's a lot of money to be made by people who set up official sounding agencies for registering copyright, but it's basically a con.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 28 Dec 14 - 09:27 PM

Hmmmm? ??

Multiple Personality Disorder.....

Bonzo Boy Is also a Lizard?


moted, corroded, someone's booty exploded

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Vic Smith
Date: 29 Dec 14 - 12:37 PM

Trust me, I'm a lawyer


Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
Date: 29 Dec 14 - 02:50 PM

Joe & Vic: "Pay no attention to that man behind the boiler plate...!!!" ;)

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Dec 14 - 04:09 PM

I'm still trying to contact three artists for permission to print their song. We have received no response from their Websites. Any leads would be appreciated:

Estate of Tommy Makem
Pete St. John
Andy M. Stewart
I got a nice e-mail from Eric Bogle yesterday. I'm enjoying this.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Dec 14 - 06:26 PM

Try the UK's MCPS - they are unlikely to have US print rights but they may well know who has.

Subject: RE: Copyright......humbug!
From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird)
Date: 20 Jan 15 - 08:16 PM

2019 is approaching, when, under present law, works published with copyright notice in the U.S. in 1923 and timely renewed will become publici juris.

That is under present law. One might reasonably expect that the robber-barons have started to send their lackeys around to drum up support for another extension.