Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright wrongs: we can't let the music industry suits stifle creativity

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Mike Richter wrote:

>  From my point of view, it would be sufficient to define as "abandoned" any
> copyright not exercised for a defined term.

I like that idea but...

I am reminded of the effort it took for Mad Magazine to determine that
whatever ownership might have existed for the image of Alfred E. Newman,
had been abandoned.

> In a few cases, sanity can be found. Testament have negotiated with EMI and
> London/Decca to reissue titles the original publishers felt they could not
> afford to release. Black Dog and Leventhal licensed some excellent but not
> first-line LP recordings from EMI, then offered them in innovative
> packaging at modest price. But other companies and other parts of those who
> have compromised are unwilling to play the game; dogs in the manger, they
> decline even to respond to inquiries from smaller operations.

And being one of the smaller operations, even when they do respond they
want more money than we would even gross to cover the release...and we are
a non-profit tax exempt organization with no paid employees.

Even the structure of mechanical rights is problematic, assuming you can
determine ownership, you have to pay as you press, not as you sell.

Karl