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

[David Lennick]

Thought it was Cliff Wretched we were cursing. As I have said numerous times, 
he can whistle if he thinks he's going to get rich from EMI keeping his stuff 
in print..he'd have been better off with the 50-year period, whereby he could 
have reissued his old recordings himself and sold them on cruise ships or at 
bingo halls or assisted living facilities or wherever he can still get a gig.

dl

On 9/10/2011 12:37 PM, Philip Carli wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I receive very little in royalties on the 100+ silent film scores I have composed and recorded for video distribution.  Nothing at all on sales, and a pittance on broadcast (I think I made about $450 last year from ASCAP). That said, I don't support the Bono law or anything like it at all; it does not benefit the general class of working musicians, as most new work is "for hire" and if you even MENTION royalties in negotiations you can lose the contract entirely.  The new EU legislation will benefit only those who have enough financial resources to sustain themselves for another 100 years already.  It is a _crock_.  Roger Daltrey is a talentless withered husk of specious morals. PC
> ________________________________________
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com [78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] on behalf of Jeff Sultanof [jeffsultanof at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:42 AM
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] E.U. just as corrupt as the U.S. [fwd]
>
> 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  .
>>> ______________________________________