Text 31318, 96 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 23:16:57 av Stewart Arnett (3:772/100)
  Kommentar till text 31248 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Canadian
================
Hello FRANK.

06 Jun 06 23:13, you wrote to me:

 FS> -=> Quoting Stewart Arnett to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS>> On 04 Jun 06  01:42:21, Ward Dossche got back to SHANNON TALLEY
 FS>> -> Re: Pickled Pirates Propaganda

 WD>>> An example ... the song "Yesterday" by the Beatles, written by
 WD>>> Paul McCartney. According to our version of the wording here,
 WD>>> the copyrightholder is Paul McCartney since his
 WD>>> intellectual ownership can never be signed-away to someone else.

 WD>>> In the US-version of the word "copyright", the copyrightholder
 WD>>> is Michael Jackson after he bought the complete
 WD>>> earlier Beatles-catalogue from EMI.

 FS>> You are wrong.  Had the Beatles been an unknown group, it would
 FS>> be quite possible for someone to purchase the material and claim
 FS>> it as their own.  Such transactions happen all of the time.

 FS>> However, that the material is so well known makes it unlikely
 FS>> that the new owner would not even attempt to pass it off as
 FS>> his own.  After all, the value is in its association with the
 FS>> original artist.

 FS>> -+- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 FS>>  + Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)

 SA>> Frank Scheidt is so stupid he still doesn't know who it was who
 SA>> sent which message to whom.

 SA>> He expects someone to listen to him, what a dork !
 FS> *You* seem to be paying close attention ... heh heh heh ...

Maybe you should have re-read what you wrote above Re' " The Beatles" and the
fact that you somehow decided to send your erronous message to me and not Ward.

You stated that Ward is wrong, why you came to this conclusion I wonder, you do
not reply to his original statment but wander off on a completely different
tack. So for clarification:

Regarding the Beatles copyright on their earlier works, unlike Ray Robinson
(Ray Charles) who demanded the recording company not aquire his copyrights, the
Beatles signed their "copyrights" over to EMI when they first recorded with the
company. This was common practice in those times. Later on when their material
had gained some considerable commercial value EMI put their copyright up for
sale to the highest bidder. Michael Jackson obtained the rights to the Beatles
music from EMI, as far as him doing "covers" of Lenon and McCartney music, I
doubt it would be commercially viable. Musically I would rate Michael Jackson
well below Lenon and Mc Cartney. Mc Cartney's Oratorio for Liverpool far
outranks anything Jackson has produced.

In this echo a previous writer (ST) has stated that a persons "intelectual
property" cannot be transfered, Ward used the song 'Yesterday' as an example of
transfer of copyrights to another person or organisation ... EMI ... laterly
Michael Jackson. This was to point out the confusion between "intelectual
property rights" and "copyright". (I hope)

I am a professional musician, as such I pay (my employer actually pays) a fee
to an organisation to cover 'copyright' on works performed as a norm during the
performance of my duties as a musician. I may perform public concerts, but not
record and sell, without problems because of this payment. I may photo copy
music and use the copies, 30 choir members need 30 copies for a performance, no
troubles but I must not sell them. I could perform Mc Cartney's Yesterday and
as Mc Cartney's Yesterday, even claim copyright on any arrangement I make, but
try to pass it off as my own work, then I am liable. I could be sued by Mc
Cartney for 'intelectual copyright' infringement, but not by Michael Jackson.

Probably by the time the accountants have finished with Michael Jackson the
Beatles' copyrights will again come onto the market and maybe Mc Cartney will
purchase them back, though most likely not for a song.

In the case of this type of transaction, no other person may pass off anothers
works: in Ward's example Lenon and Mc Cartney's: as their own. Due credence
must be made to the writer at all times. This is where the MVD ..v.. Shannon T
becomes annoying, MVD is right ... and ... wrong, so is Shannon. The question
is, did MVD sign his "copyright" over to FidoNews when he presented his
article? If he did then he has no argument regarding Shannon making it
available on his site. The rights belong to FidoNews and it is up to "FidoNews"
to take it up with Shannon, it seems to me that is so in this case. Shannon is
correct in that he hasn't violated MVD's intelectual rights as he makes fair
and open declaration that MVD is the author of the article. He is wrong though,
in that he has stepped (probably very mildly) on someone toes regarding
"copyright". Whose toes depends on whether MVD did or did not give up his
copyright when he gave the article to the snooze.

But for heavens sake, I don't want (and I bet you don't either) to get involved
in this particular "WAR" so this will probably be all I will write regarding
it.

Stewart

--- GoldED/2 3.0.1
 * Origin: The RockBBS Auckland NZ 64-9-5799604 (3:772/100)