Text 31319, 102 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 08:13:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av STEWART ARNETT
Ärende: Canadian
================
-=> Quoting Stewart Arnett to Frank Scheidt <=-

 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 ...

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

HEY, DUMBO, THAT BEATLES THING WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME *DESPITE* 
THE "FS?" THING SO REMOVE THAT FROM YOUR LITTLE MIND.  HENCE 
*NONE* OF THE FOLLOWING DRIVEL FROM YOU APPLIES ... heh heh heh 
... something's screwed up here and you're not sufficiently alert 
to realize it ... [sigh] ...

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

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

 SA> In this echo a previous writer (ST) has stated that a persons
 SA> "intelectual property" cannot be transfered, Ward used the song
 SA> 'Yesterday' as an example of transfer of copyrights to another person
 SA> or organisation ... EMI ... laterly Michael Jackson. This was to point
 SA> out the confusion between "intelectual property rights" and
 SA> "copyright". (I hope) 
 SA> I am a professional musician, as such I pay (my employer actually
 SA> pays) a fee to an organisation to cover 'copyright' on works performed
 SA> as a norm during the performance of my duties as a musician. I may
 SA> perform public concerts, but not record and sell, without problems
 SA> because of this payment. I may photo copy music and use the copies, 30
 SA> choir members need 30 copies for a performance, no troubles but I must
 SA> not sell them. I could perform Mc Cartney's Yesterday and as Mc
 SA> Cartney's Yesterday, even claim copyright on any arrangement I make,
 SA> but try to pass it off as my own work, then I am liable. I could be
 SA> sued by Mc Cartney for 'intelectual copyright' infringement, but not by
 SA> Michael Jackson. 
 SA> Probably by the time the accountants have finished with Michael
 SA> Jackson the Beatles' copyrights will again come onto the market and
 SA> maybe Mc Cartney will purchase them back, though most likely not for a
 SA> song. 
 SA> In the case of this type of transaction, no other person may pass off
 SA> anothers works: in Ward's example Lenon and Mc Cartney's: as their own.
 SA> Due credence must be made to the writer at all times. This is where the
 SA> MVD ..v.. Shannon T becomes annoying, MVD is right ... and ... wrong,
 SA> so is Shannon. The question is, did MVD sign his "copyright" over to
 SA> FidoNews when he presented his article? If he did then he has no
 SA> argument regarding Shannon making it available on his site. The rights
 SA> belong to FidoNews and it is up to "FidoNews" to take it up with
 SA> Shannon, it seems to me that is so in this case. Shannon is correct in
 SA> that he hasn't violated MVD's intelectual rights as he makes fair and
 SA> open declaration that MVD is the author of the article. He is wrong
 SA> though, in that he has stepped (probably very mildly) on someone toes
 SA> regarding "copyright". Whose toes depends on whether MVD did or did not
 SA> give up his copyright when he gave the article to the snooze.

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

Well *that's* good news at least ... heh heh heh ...

... "Starving artists"???  Let them get jobs.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)