Comments on: IMSLP re-starts on July 1

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:17:10 +0000

As the owner of copyrighted works I can forbid derivative works (NC, ND) and I do so to prevent some parasites from the majors to claim copyright on my stuff.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:27:13 +0000

Don Kee Says:
“What gives them the right? Nothing.”
“They can claim copyright on a derivative work only,”

Don is right. But the lawa ae wrong. Derivative works (for example, a recording of Chopin by pianist X) should also be at the outset in the public domain. The reasoning is simple: If derivative works are not in the public domain, then nothing is in de facto public domain, and pianist X (or his/her record company) owns de facto the work by Chopin.

The idea of public domain exists because the laws limit copyright duration, but the idea is defeated by the idea that derivative works of public domain works are not themselves in the public domain.

Who is fooling who?

By: Don Kee

Don Kee — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:59:34 +0000

Dead composers. Now quietly decomposing? Pity Boathaven can’t come back to sue isn’t it? The cartels will do it FOR him. Or rather, for themselves. What gives them the right? Nothing. Did he have a contract with them? It’s ok for them to steal his work and profit by it, but to then claim copyright? That’s absurd. They can claim copyright on a derivative work only, since these excomposers are not around to defend themselves. Even if they were, the cartels would steal it from under their noses, and sue them if they chose not to contract with them.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:36:33 +0000

Ok, so licensing in Canada the public domain work of a composer wo died over 50 years ago is fraud.

Is anyone counting the frauds or doing anything about the frauds?

Where are the copyright cops when the criminals are big music publishers who peddle public doamin works?

Is Mickey Mouse licensed in Canada? It is fraud, a crime.