smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "bob" <segarini@sympatico.ca> |
| Subject | Re: No need to register copyrights. |
| Date | Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:44:41 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
We were talking about writers "ripping off" writers.
No doubt the un-creative middlemen will drive themselves crazy looking for
free money from the writer's work...nothing new there. And "dirty" lawyers?
Nope...just doing their job lumps them in with all the other zoo-keepers
that always make more money than the artist. Lawyers, (mandatory when
signing with a major record or publishing company), agents, managers, and
other hanger's on are the people that benefit from the artist's work, very
rarely, the artist him or herself.
If you've ever written a song that has been recorded, you know that everyone
involved wants a piece. You're lucky to hold onto any rights these days...
bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Williams" <ryan@headphonetreats.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: No need to register copyrights.
> > Sometimes, snatches of more famous tunes can be culled from an artist's
> > writing, but I would consider that more homage than theft.
>
> Agreed. But again. It's not about theft. Infringement is a big grey
> area. My point was that it rarely comes down to a black and white right
> or wrong. Even in the seemingly black and white cases with groups like
> 2LiveCrew, where parody use was the defense, there was a great deal of
> grey area... their was no question of their use of the song.
>
> > Legality? Lawyers will jump on ANYTHING they think will allow them to
> > trade
> > up on the Mercedes or boat, and are usually at the center of anything
> > creative that ends up in court. The problem with ALL laws is that they
> > are
> > often on the side of those that use them to profit from others.
> > They're called Courts Of Law...not Courts Of Justice.
>
> While that may sometimes be the case, it is the publishing companies
> that cries foul... you don't have many lawyers listening intently to the
> airwaves trying to dig up a case. And after all, it is the publishers
> property. They should be allowed to protect it if they feel the
> infringement is valid. And as I have pointed out, Infringement is
> terribly difficult to prove. There are few cases that make it past the
> law office, let alone the hearing stage. This isn't an area of law ripe
> in menace suits. Playing it off with the "dirty lawyer" argument doesn't
> really hold water.
>
> A cheesy, yet good example of a valid infringement case was between Huey
> Lewis and the News and Ray Parker Jr. over the theme to "Ghostbusters".
> Huey Lewis had be asked to record a theme for the movie, but he refused
> to be involved. So the producers went to Ray Parker, Jr. and asked him
> to write a song that sounded like something Huey Lewis would do. He did
> so, and in the process infringed on Huey's "I Want A New Drug". The case
> was settled out of court. Heuy was quoted as saying "The offensive part
> was not so much that Ray Parker Jr. had ripped this song off, it was
> kind of symbolic of an industry that wants something -- they wanted our
> wave, and they wanted to buy it. ... [I]t's not for sale. ... In the
> end, I suppose they were right. I suppose it was for sale, because,
> basically, they bought it."
>
> So there's an example of the artist trying to protect himself against
> the industry using this very law. There are countless others.
>
> Ryan
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.