As no one can possible read your post, I will break it up for you.
I'm unfamiliar with the term save in children's books. Anyway, record companies have not been required to put the" © " copyright notice on recordings, subsequently allowing for a total savaging of royalties payments agreements, evasion of laws and screwing the creator of the original works.
And this has what to do with works passing into the public domain? Works, before the law was changed, started in the public domain if you left the © off, which isn't 'passing into the public domain at all'. It is, in fact, exactly the exemption I said 'unless the owner of the copyright let it lapse, accidently or on purpose', except that the owner never even put it under copyright, either by accident or on purpose.
Works do not 'pass' into the public domain anymore. They are placed there.
Not unlike the bribery-festooned behavior of Congress which allowed not a penny of royalties to be paid to anyone for jukebox uses until the mid-seventies in the USA, despite common payments for those uses, along with others, in European countries for most of a century.
Again, completely bafffled as to what this has to do with anything. Playing music out of a jukebox is a public performance, and, yes, it's idiotic that artists didn't get royalties, but that's not what anyone was talking about, nothing I've said could be even vaguely interpeted to have anything to do with that.
Long before the last two revisions of the copyright acts instigated by judicial incompetence in several court cases which resulted in no change in existing law. Interesting how it is suddenly ok to rape the creators of all this material because the new revisions benefit the corporate distributors who are glomming trademarks and contingency-fee lawyers into the mix.
I think you're living in your own little rant world, and I wouldn't have even responded if you'd just posted the text above.
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Willa Cather, G K Chesterton, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,Theodore Dreiser,F Scott Fitzgerald, D H Lawrence,Sinclair Lewis, Mark Twain, H G Wells, all have created works that have passed into public domain.
Now you've come back to reality and the topic at hand. Now please explain to me which of these works passed (and was required to pass, not passed through lack of asking for an extension) in the last decade? Can't think of any? How about the last thirty years? No?
And not only J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Felix Mendelshohn, Handel, Brahms Lizst, Chopin as well, but also Stephen Foster,Sibelius, Mussourgsky, Scriabin, Puccini, Maurice Ravel, Claude Debussy, George Gershwin and Victor Herbertas well created works now in public domain.
Yes, and I've created works in the public domain. Quite a lot of people have. That's not a work 'passing' into the public domain, it's a newly created work in the public domain, and it would have presumably been created in exactly the same way without copyright law, so it's not really a very good argument for copyright law at all, which appears to have been what your original rant was about.
Sorry if that isn't in some imaginary decade or several time window, however that is also the same space in which one of the Beatles and ZZ Top both found themselves in court for (perhaps inadvertently)plagiarizing earlier, older, black artists.
The last decade was not 'imaginary'. There are several billion people that will testify it did exist.
And you are the one who started talking about 'every day'. Well, no, works stopped passing into the public domain unless the people wanted them to a long time ago, well before most of the people on this site were born and well before computers existed.
This seems ironic (and obvious given the past Monday's MLK observance. At the time of the voting rights and civil rights legislation in the mid 1960's there were numerous people who thought it un-necessary and not because of the language of the Bill of Rights. Many today who pretend it was the 1860's.
Who thought what was unnecessary? The civil rights movement? I don't think people thought it was 'unnecassary', although they might have thought it was too much too soon. (And other thought it was too little too late.)
But what the hell this has to do with copyright I have no idea.
But it is not the fault of the artist or author who may pay a nominal fee to protect yet unpublished material, that the same law which may protect the use and rights in his/her work may benefit the media conglomerates whose foot-dragging and theft of royalties is legendary.
Um, right. It's not the artist's fault, you've sure convinced me
Just out of curiousity, how on earth did you decided I was blaming the artist for anything?
Why punish the artist? There is an entire society and a megalithic infotainment complex already doing so 24/7.
I agree, except for mimes, who should be punished to the full extent of the law. What were you trying to prove again?
-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]