Re: [ARSCLIST] the public Domain

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Olhsson" <olh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tom Fine wrote:
> >do you see
> >some sort of middle
> >ground, where stuff that is now moldering in megaglomerates' vaults can
be
> >released in some forum -- 
>
> Not really! It's like saying an individual who has acquired a Rembrandt
owes it to the public to give it to a museum after a certain time. Certainly
it would be nice if they choose to do so but the bottom-line is that if an
individual can be compelled to give up their Rembrandt, they are going to be
a lot less inclined to buy fine art in the future. The next generation of
artists is who will pay the price.
>

No...the difference is that there is only a single example of a painting,
and sound recordings usuall exist in multiples. Imagine if the owner of
a Rembrandt also owned all the rights as far as reproducing it, even in
art textbooks...so that it couldn't be seen unless he/she/it allowed
one to see it!

> I think this commonly repeated "megaglomerate" language really clouds the
issue which is about the right of composers and recording artists to set a
market value on what they create. Nothing could be further from their best
interest than limiting the property rights of those who would pay them for
their work. I am also very disturbed by the growing role advertisers are
playing in determining exactly what music we get to hear performed. Attacks
on the value of an artists equity can only result in a greater need for
subsidy and with that lower average quality.
>

But, in the case of sound recordings, many of the artists involved
are long since dead...but none of the recordings are in the public
domain, nor are the copyright holders obliged to pay anything to
those creating artists other than the original payment for the
recording session!

> I get into this whenever it comes up because nobody is really sticking up
for the next generation of the people who create our recordings and music.
>

Who will, for the most part, be badly treated by the record companies
they sign contracts with...and, as well, not be able to market
their recordings elsewhere unless they remake them, since the
copyrights in most cases belong to the companies (who often
take other royalty rights as well!)

Steven C. Barr