Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not trying to pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the original owners of such monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles' library are forced to undergo legal proceedings to retain their work , or archival works of genius such as Coltrane are up for grabs by Hal Leonard, ex-drummer.
On 11/07/2010, at 12:23 AM, Cecil Rigby wrote: > I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just understand---- > > WHY, exactly, is it offensive in any degree that anyone can (having enough > money and a willing seller) become a holder of copyrights? > > The individual artist's rights are NOT abridged just because someone may buy > their publisher's library. The new owner is still bound by the original > contractual agreements. That the artists weren't astute enough when the > contracts were signed, or that the industry may've taken advantage of them, > are different issues altogether. > > Or did I miss something? > > -Cecil Rigby > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Hanley" <[email protected]> > > [snip] > > That Paul McCartney could own Buddy Holly's music, and more offensively, > Michael Jackson could buy the Beatles' library shows the dichotomy between > the artist's rights and the so-called copyright holder's rights. > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
