Comments on: UMG v MP3.com http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7374 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7374/comment-page-1#comment-26751 Reader's Write Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:22:24 +0000 #comment-26751 "Indeed, work-made-for-hire contracts became a "take it or leave it" proposition in the business - as several witnesses in last May’s hearing on work-made-for-hire status for sounds recordings testified." If the above is true, and widespread in the industry, then the contracts signed by the artists are illegal because they were signed under duress. A truth a lawyer-judge will never accept. Songwriter contracts are the same. They are always signed under duress, with all publishers having the same terms.They are all take it or leave it and all require the givining up of rights in exchanged for nothing that is or results that are guaranteed. Of course this is the inevitable result when the ever present "association" is formed. All the songwrites get is promises that hardly ever materialize. Then the law is unfair and actually quite stupid from an artists point of view. Why should an artist-songwriter have to wait 35 years to terminate an assignment to a publisher? A song assignment by a songwriter is nothing more than a management deal, where the publisher manages (exploits) the songs. The assignment should last only as long as the publisher is managing well the song. Of course the publisher association and the take it or leave it offer precules a logical arrangement based on equity between a songwriter ans a publisher. Since publishers do not manage well (or at all) the vast majority of songs assigned to them why should the songwriter have to wait 35 years to get his/her rights back? Oh, I forgot. The law was actualy wrritten by the copyritht cartel's lobby, while songwriters and artists and their alleged songwriter organizations (controlled or paid off by the publishers) were sucking their thumbs. The the termination rights are just a phantom right, hardly enforceable by lone artists and songwriters that cannot battle the well funded cartels, whose funds are capable of buying off everyone. On a recent case I was involved, when a rep of the largest music publisher was asked in the trial if the rights to any song had ever been returned to its original owner, the reply as NO. Of course this means that renewal rights and termination rights provisions in the law are just a mockery in the law, not respected by this particualr publisher, the largest one. An interesting article on the subject can be read here: BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/ Yes, copyrights are nothing more than a legal scam. From an experienced and dissatisfied copyright holder, artists and songwriters get shafted all the time. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Indeed, work-made-for-hire contracts became a “take it or leave it” proposition in the business – as several witnesses in last May’s hearing on work-made-for-hire status for sounds recordings testified.”

If the above is true, and widespread in the industry, then the contracts signed by the artists are illegal because they were signed under duress. A truth a lawyer-judge will never accept.

Songwriter contracts are the same. They are always signed under duress, with all publishers having the same terms.They are all take it or leave it and all require the givining up of rights in exchanged for nothing that is or results that are guaranteed. Of course this is the inevitable result when the ever present “association” is formed.

All the songwrites get is promises that hardly ever materialize.

Then the law is unfair and actually quite stupid from an artists point of view. Why should an artist-songwriter have to wait 35 years to terminate an assignment to a publisher? A song assignment by a songwriter is nothing more than a management deal, where the publisher manages (exploits) the songs. The assignment should last only as long as the publisher is managing well the song. Of course the publisher association and the take it or leave it offer precules a logical arrangement based on equity between a songwriter ans a publisher.

Since publishers do not manage well (or at all) the vast majority of songs assigned to them why should the songwriter have to wait 35 years to get his/her rights back?

Oh, I forgot. The law was actualy wrritten by the copyritht cartel’s lobby, while songwriters and artists and their alleged songwriter organizations (controlled or paid off by the publishers) were sucking their thumbs.

The the termination rights are just a phantom right, hardly enforceable by lone artists and songwriters that cannot battle the well funded cartels, whose funds are capable of buying off everyone.

On a recent case I was involved, when a rep of the largest music publisher was asked in the trial if the rights to any song had ever been returned to its original owner, the reply as NO. Of course this means that renewal rights and termination rights provisions in the law are just a mockery in the law, not respected by this particualr publisher, the largest one.

An interesting article on the subject can be read here:
BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM
http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/

Yes, copyrights are nothing more than a legal scam.

From an experienced and dissatisfied copyright holder, artists and songwriters get shafted all the time.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]>