[78-L] E.U. just as corrupt as the U.S. [fwd]

[Michael Biel]

On 9/10/2011 3:09 AM, Mike Harkin wrote:
>   On 9/9/2011 2:55 PM, Cary Ginell wrote:
> " The Public Domain is a black hole. Nothing that enters it can escape. Once something is P.D., traditionally it has been P.D. forever.'
>   
> Unless, of course, the lapdogs of the RIAA in the US Congress and the EU Parlament choose in their alleged wisdom they choose to declare that PD is no longer PD.  Not-
> withstanding the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.  Isn't that what Congress did in the Sonnyofabitch Bonehead case?
>   
> Mike in Plovdiv
>

No, it just lengthened all valid copyrights--not just recordings-- by 20 
years.  No PD items were reinstated,

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

>
> --- On Sat, 9/10/11, Michael Biel<mbiel at mbiel.com>  wrote:
>
>
> From: Michael Biel<mbiel at mbiel.com>
> Subject: Re: [78-L] E.U. just as corrupt as the U.S.
> To: "78-L Mail List"<78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Date: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 12:44 AM
>
>
> On 9/9/2011 7:47 PM, Alan Bunting wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Lennick,
>>     
>> Mr Bunting actually posted the first news of this development back on September 1st and was rather surprised that it produced not a single response.
> In my case it was another notice of what MIGHT happen, not what has
> axtually haoppened, and we have had plenty of these in the past three or
> four years that we have commented on.
>> On 9/9/2011 2:55 PM, Cary Ginell wrote:
>>>> The Public Domain is a black hole. Nothing that enters it can escape. Once something is P.D., traditionally it has been P.D. forever.
>>>>
>>>     And remember how "It's a Blunderful Life" came back into copyright
>>> through some side door?   dl
> In this instance it was only PRESUMED to be PD.  It never actually was. 
> The heirs of the writer of the original short story the film was based
> on had retracted the licensing of the film rights when they renewed the
> story's copyright for a second 28 years, and nobody noticed that the
> loss of the underlying rights meant that the film could not be used
> without the approval of the heirs of the story's writer.  This could
> have happened even if Liberty Films' copyright had been renewed,
> although that entity could have re-negotiated.  In this case since there
> was no entity to renegotiate with, the heirs essentially cancelled
> anybody's right to use the film without negotiating with them.  As I
> understand it, the film still is PD, but since the story is not, the
> film can only be used with the permission and licensing of the story
> writer's heirs.  This is just like a P.D. sound recording which still
> must be licensed by the song writer, just that although there is
> compulsory licensing for songs there is none for short stories.
>
> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com  .
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>