> What if Eminem didn't have to waste time getting Aerosmith's > permission to sample Sing for the Moment?
so I'm guessing the free market decides whose version is better, but why should Eminem be able to profit from a song based on someone else's lyrical content and melody while that determination is made? After all, the music is not necessarily going to be an instant success or failure. Tons of Eminem discs will be sold regardless of the popularity of the song, but he still used it and Aerosmith should still profit from the use of their creation. >Eminem innovated on a > pervious creation...but he had to have a zillion dollars and contacts > with the record company to pull it off. Why shouldn't some killer > young artist be able to sing a better version and get his own zillion > dollars, after a certain amount of time (much less that 75 years) has > past? And why shouldn't the older (non-killer?) artist be able to profit from the use of the song that was made when he was a killer artist himself? You seem to be assuming that the royalties for use are extremely expensive (don't know exactly, most of my involvement in licensing music has been in video production where $75 buys you a whole disc of "royalty-free" music). and FWIW I have several versions of songs on different discs in my collection. One that leaps to mind is Hank Williams' "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry" I'm reminded of it because I just recently bought the latest Johnny Cash album and he covers it. My guess is he paid royalties on the song. I have several other versions of the same song, Cowboy junkies and the original recording coming to the forefront. Each is different and "innovative" in that they are new interpretations fo the song, and each seems to have been produced within the boundaries of copyright law. And everyone is profiting (to some extent at least...) where's the problem? will ----- Original Message ----- From: "jon hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: Re: all slashbots are idiots. > Monday, July 7, 2003, 5:06:09 PM, you wrote: > WB> hold on there...The design of the Wright brother's aeroplane may have been > WB> patented but is it also copyrighted? Or are just the plans themselves (the > WB> physical representation of the plans)? In the copyright case, would use of > WB> that explicit design be technically forbidden without permission? OR just > WB> use/re-publishing of the plans? > > I shouldn't have used a patent example...I was speaking more towards the > innovation issue. > > Copyright's and patents encourage innovation, but they can also harm > it as well. Thomas Jefferson, whom the US patent office calls their > > WB> Innovation has always been looked upon favorably by the patent office (in > WB> the case of designs), so I don't exactly get the connection there. > WB> Improvements to existing inventions can be seperately patented without > WB> violation of the original patent, no? So better wings added to the fuselage, > WB> tail rudder, put the tail on the back of the plane, would be innovations to > WB> an existing patent...innovative and deriviative but not necessarily > WB> stealing? Question of degree I guess... > > Innovation as in say...Casablanca 2, or a story using their > characters. It may not be a summer blockbuster, but I bet a good > amount of people would love to see it. > > >> What good does it do American Citizens if a stagnant corporation that > >> no longer knows how to innovate is able to continue existing and > >> standing in the way of real innovators? It's corporate welfare...and > >> anti-capitalist. > > WB> Who determines that they are "stagnant"? > > The free market does. > > WB> If I go to your web site and steal > WB> original artwork, or plagarize your book and use it as my own, should I be > WB> prosecuted? I say yes, and to the fullest extent of the law. > > I am not for plagiarizing or stealing anything. I am against the > "forever minus 1 day" copyright length limit we seem to have...because > Disney lines the pockets of our senators. > > WB> Oh, and FWIW, if these people are so damned innovative, how come they have > WB> to take other people's work? How come they are spending so much time worried > WB> about what they can steal from other creative folks? Or how long after one > WB> dies they can capitalize on one's work? > > What if Eminem didn't have to waste time getting Aerosmith's > permission to sample Sing for the Moment? Eminem innovated on a > pervious creation...but he had to have a zillion dollars and contacts > with the record company to pull it off. Why shouldn't some killer > young artist be able to sing a better version and get his own zillion > dollars, after a certain amount of time (much less that 75 years) has > past? > > WB> Copyrighted is copyrighted, you shouldn't be able to steal my work just > WB> 'cause you feel like it. I have a right to profit from what I created don't > WB> I? And I don't have to share if I don't want to... > > WB> :-P > > WB> will > > -- > jon > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
