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

[Jeff Sultanof]

As far as I know, the only copyrights that were 'reinstated' for protection
were works by Russian composers such as Prokofiev and Shostakovich.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>