In a message dated 1/26/99 1:22:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I'm sure that's all true. But I was thinking, too, that it was more than
just the
pickiness and accepted standards of writers and editors at play here. I was
thinking it was, you know, like, the law. . . . I'm guessing there's a
difference in copyright law/requirents, although I don't think that makes much
sense.
>>
I think it's more likely the application of the standard or the application of
the law -- because a copyright is a copyright regardless of what the format of
the item copyrighted is. Remember old 45's -- I remember as a kid not knowing
what the name in parentheses under the performers name meant. It was the
writer of the song. So at some time in music history there may have been a
standard. I know this is minutia to some but I guess I find it pretty
interesting. And one would think with Nashville being a "songwriters" town,
that there of all places, credit would be given. But then again, didn't this
start with Hazeldine? I don't have their CD or even know what label it's on
-- I still think that smaller labels might not be following proper protocol
but no one's called them on it. Then again maybe they have been called and we
don't know. But I agree with whoever, it annoys the hell out of me when
someone covers a song on a CD and doesn't properly credit it. You know -- BMI
and ASCAP might be the place to clear this up. I'm too tired to go web
surfing -- Curry -- that's your assignment for tomorrow <g>
Deb
I'll probably be digging into copyright tomorrow night in my studies -- but it
will deal more with electronic documents <g>
