Comments on: Queen Elizabeth: copyright violator http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jiheishou Daigakusha http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-1035331 Jiheishou Daigakusha Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:32:44 +0000 #comment-1035331 The melody's been in the Public Domain since 1950, anyway. You see, it entered the US Public Domain in that year, and with the UK following the Rule of the Shorter Term from 1911-1956... The melody’s been in the Public Domain since 1950, anyway. You see, it entered the US Public Domain in that year, and with the UK following the Rule of the Shorter Term from 1911-1956…

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39105 Reader's Write Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:04:08 +0000 #comment-39105 I will show how music publishers become the owner of the public domain Mexican Anthem. These are the steps they can follow if they also want to own the American National Anthem. The steps are generic and can be used to get ownership of any musical work in the public domain. You can do it too if you want a fast buck. BTW, the Mexicans are furious because their anthem has been taken over. 1. Get anyone (no musical knowlege is required) to take an old public domain arrangement of a famous public domain work and make some cosmetic additions or changes. The new work now qualifies for a new copyright (yes the copyright laws are very stupid). Nevermind that the Copyright Office cops work to protect for the idustry one would assume they are to watch over. They always look sideways, like the Chicago police in the Capone days. 2. Spread the word that you have rights ver the famous musical work. Just never say that the work you own is a derivative of a public domain work or be specific in saying that you will sue the user. Never say you are the only owners, as others can pull the same scam. For example, the American anthem has hundreds of claimants (probably a record). Just check the ASCAP catalog. 3. When the work is used without your license you make a claim for money, making a veiled, indirect threat that you may sue. Just don't say it too directly. If someone ignores you, you also ignore that someone. Some will simply pay and that is the payoff of the scam. 4. If you make enough money from the scam, a well know music publisher will make even more money. Sell your copyright to that publisher. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas I will show how music publishers become the owner of the public domain Mexican Anthem. These are the steps they can follow if they also want to own the American National Anthem. The steps are generic and can be used to get ownership of any musical work in the public domain. You can do it too if you want a fast buck.

BTW, the Mexicans are furious because their anthem has been taken over.

1. Get anyone (no musical knowlege is required) to take an old public domain arrangement of a famous public domain work and make some cosmetic additions or changes. The new work now qualifies for a new copyright (yes the copyright laws are very stupid). Nevermind that the Copyright Office cops work to protect for the idustry one would assume they are to watch over. They always look sideways, like the Chicago police in the Capone days.

2. Spread the word that you have rights ver the famous musical work. Just never say that the work you own is a derivative of a public domain work or be specific in saying that you will sue the user. Never say you are the only owners, as others can pull the same scam. For example, the American anthem has hundreds of claimants (probably a record). Just check the ASCAP catalog.

3. When the work is used without your license you make a claim for money, making a veiled, indirect threat that you may sue. Just don’t say it too directly. If someone ignores you, you also ignore that someone. Some will simply pay and that is the payoff of the scam.

4. If you make enough money from the scam, a well know music publisher will make even more money. Sell your copyright to that publisher.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39098 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:08:03 +0000 #comment-39098 HOW the hell did A-lways O-ff-L-ine/Time Warner get the 'copyright' to a song that has been around far LONGER than THEY have?!?!?!?!?!? This is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW the hell did A-lways O-ff-L-ine/Time Warner get the ‘copyright’ to a song that has been around far LONGER than THEY have?!?!?!?!?!?

This is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39060 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:05:17 +0000 #comment-39060 "Just because something is protected in one country it is not necessarily protected in another in exactly the same way." The song Hay Birthday to you was reportedly published many times before it was copyright registered in 1935. The fact that ir was so well known before it was copyright registered means that it must have been published, as word of mouth spreading would have resulted in a million (to use a nu,ber) versions. So the song is on the public doamain and a publisher and ASCAP is still exploiting it. Essentially stealing from others by exploting confussion and ignorance of the copyright laws, That is what publishers and performance rights have always done, steal, usually from songwriters. This time around it is from the performers of the songs and the public that eventually pays for something that must be, legally speaking, free and the payments are made out of fear of being sued. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Just because something is protected in one country it is not necessarily protected in another in exactly the same way.”

The song Hay Birthday to you was reportedly published many times before it was copyright registered in 1935. The fact that ir was so well known before it was copyright registered means that it must have been published, as word of mouth spreading would have resulted in a million (to use a nu,ber) versions.

So the song is on the public doamain and a publisher and ASCAP is still exploiting it. Essentially stealing from others by exploting confussion and ignorance of the copyright laws, That is what publishers and performance rights have always done, steal, usually from songwriters. This time around it is from the performers of the songs and the public that eventually pays for something that must be, legally speaking, free and the payments are made out of fear of being sued.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39058 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:46:47 +0000 #comment-39058 Although Happy Birthday to You may be in copyright in the USA it is not so protected under UK (or European) law where copyright expires 70 years afterthe composer died. It seems nobodyknows exactly who wrote the current popular verson so copyright expires 70 years after it was furst published, i.e. 2005. Just because something is protected in one country it is not necessarily protected in another in exactly the same way. Graham Although Happy Birthday to You may be in copyright in the USA it is not so protected under UK (or European) law where copyright expires 70 years afterthe composer died. It seems nobodyknows exactly who wrote the current popular verson so copyright expires 70 years after it was furst published, i.e. 2005. Just because something is protected in one country it is not necessarily protected in another in exactly the same way.

Graham

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39053 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:15:18 +0000 #comment-39053 all military bands in the UK fill out their monthly PRS returns with a cheque all military bands in the UK fill out their monthly PRS returns with a cheque

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39052 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:58:26 +0000 #comment-39052 The other possibility is that all of the military bands in the UK have a blanket license from the UK equivalent of ASCAP or BMI to perform any song from their catalog, at any venue, under any circumstances. In the case of a live performance, the only copyright holder of concern is the composer. The 'publisher' (i.e., the recording industry) has no role in the case of live, public performances. I find it interesting that the UK copyright laws are filed and available from the patent office when the administration and legalities of copyrights versus patents are vastly different. The other possibility is that all of the military bands in the UK have a blanket license from the UK equivalent of ASCAP or BMI to perform any song from their catalog, at any venue, under any circumstances. In the case of a live performance, the only copyright holder of concern is the composer. The ‘publisher’ (i.e., the recording industry) has no role in the case of live, public performances.

I find it interesting that the UK copyright laws are filed and available from the patent office when the administration and legalities of copyrights versus patents are vastly different.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39050 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 06:34:37 +0000 #comment-39050 "Oh, you made a boo-boo, 'Happy Birthday to You.' You sung it in Denny's..... Now Edgar Bronfmann's suing you...." Sung to the tune of.... Oh, never mind..... --TurboGeek (On his fourth Cosmopolitan) “Oh, you made a boo-boo,
‘Happy Birthday to You.’
You sung it in Denny’s…..
Now Edgar Bronfmann’s suing you….”

Sung to the tune of…. Oh, never mind…..

–TurboGeek
(On his fourth Cosmopolitan)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39049 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 06:25:22 +0000 #comment-39049 It really doesn't matter what the piece is entitled. The fact is that the melody is identical to that of a work in the public domain, therefore that particular melody is not subject to copyright. There are many works of classical music (usually only a portion of it, such as one movement) that have an alternative "popular" title. While someone may have penned lyrics for it that are under copyright, that does not also extend to the music. In this particular case, the whole issue is likely moot as the piece was performed at an official state function, thus falling under an exemption. That condition is sufficient. In addition, it was performed by an official arm of the Government, one of the UK's military bands. This would make it extremely difficult to pursue a lawsuit as the band members would likely enjoy statutory immunity as the performance was part of their official duties. It really doesn’t matter what the piece is entitled. The fact is that the melody is identical to that of a work in the public domain, therefore that particular melody is not subject to copyright.

There are many works of classical music (usually only a portion of it, such as one movement) that have an alternative “popular” title. While someone may have penned lyrics for it that are under copyright, that does not also extend to the music.

In this particular case, the whole issue is likely moot as the piece was performed at an official state function, thus falling under an exemption. That condition is sufficient. In addition, it was performed by an official arm of the Government, one of the UK’s military bands. This would make it extremely difficult to pursue a lawsuit as the band members would likely enjoy statutory immunity as the performance was part of their official duties.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39047 Reader's Write Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:15:20 +0000 #comment-39047 Whether there is a "public interest" exemption (which it doesn't look liek there is) or permission is required, you have to get the ok from someone BEFORE playing the song. So I want to see either a document from the U.K. Home Office saying they voided the copyright on this occasion, or a document from AOL Time Warner saying they'd be happy to let the Brits use the song free of charge...on this occasion. Unless AOL/Brit Government just make it all up after the fact. Whether there is a “public interest” exemption (which it doesn’t look liek there is) or permission is required, you have to get the ok from someone BEFORE playing the song.

So I want to see either a document from the U.K. Home Office saying they voided the copyright on this occasion, or a document from AOL Time Warner saying they’d be happy to let the Brits use the song free of charge…on this occasion.

Unless AOL/Brit Government just make it all up after the fact.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39041 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:03:49 +0000 #comment-39041 rules and laws are just getting stupid now, soon you probly won't be allowed to say copywrited words in public without getting a fine. rules and laws are just getting stupid now, soon you probly won’t be allowed to say copywrited words in public without getting a fine.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39038 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:24:45 +0000 #comment-39038 You could make a Freedom of Information Act request of the British Army, which provides the bands and so was the institution which was in breach of copyright unless it had a license, as to whether it had a license and, if not, whether it paid or has been asked for royalties. it's pretty predictable that the answer will be 'no; no; and no'! In Britain, as elsewhere the laws apply only to those at the bottom. You could make a Freedom of Information Act request of the British Army, which provides the bands and so was the institution which was in breach of copyright unless it had a license, as to whether it had a license and, if not, whether it paid or has been asked for royalties. it’s pretty predictable that the answer will be ‘no; no; and no’!

In Britain, as elsewhere the laws apply only to those at the bottom.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39037 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:09:52 +0000 #comment-39037 There is no public interest issue here. The interest of the public is served when all music can be performed for free if no profit is made from the music. If there was no entrance fee to attend the Queens's (or anyon'es) birthday and no profit made from the event or was collected from advertisers at the event, there should be no charge for playing the music. If this disagrees with the law, then the law is bad from a public interest perspective. As it is now, music almost everuwhere is a prisioner of the copyright cartels and that should be changed so that the public interest is served. Free the music! Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com There is no public interest issue here.

The interest of the public is served when all music can be performed for free if no profit is made from the music. If there was no entrance fee to attend the Queens’s (or anyon’es) birthday and no profit made from the event or was collected from advertisers at the event, there should be no charge for playing the music. If this disagrees with the law, then the law is bad from a public interest perspective.

As it is now, music almost everuwhere is a prisioner of the copyright cartels and that should be changed so that the public interest is served.

Free the music!

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39032 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:25:04 +0000 #comment-39032 I can't find any such exemption, whether for 'public interest' , for the Army, or otherwise. If it existed, it would be in the UK copyright Act, which (fully up to date ) is at http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislation.pdf . Reader's Write seems to be imagining this. You could make a Freedom of Information Act request of the British Army, which provides the bands and so was the institution which was in breach of copyright unless it had a license, as to whether it had a license and, if not, whether it paid or has been asked for royalties. it's pretty predictable that the answer will be 'no; no; and no'! I can’t find any such exemption, whether for ‘public interest’ , for the Army, or otherwise. If it existed, it would be in the UK copyright Act, which (fully up to date ) is at http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislation.pdf . Reader’s Write seems to be imagining this.

You could make a Freedom of Information Act request of the British Army, which provides the bands and so was the institution which was in breach of copyright unless it had a license, as to whether it had a license and, if not, whether it paid or has been asked for royalties. it’s pretty predictable that the answer will be ‘no; no; and no’!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39027 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:53:33 +0000 #comment-39027 i did get your motivation and i do agree with the unfairness of unequal treatment of animals but all i was saying is that from a copyright perspective i believe that in this case there is no issue. The role of royals is to serve the Public interest. whether or not this is justified is a personal thing, but in copyright there are exceptions to infringement when the public interest benefits from it. and given the pulic interest in the queen's birthday i believe in this case the exception applies. and that's why no royalties have to be paid. here its not a matter of favourism towards the blue blooded, but a (in my opinion) justified legal exception. so that was the bubble i burst: its not about the person of the queen, its about the public interest in the happening. i did get your motivation and i do agree with the unfairness of unequal treatment of animals but all i was saying is that from a copyright perspective i believe that in this case there is no issue.

The role of royals is to serve the Public interest. whether or not this is justified is a personal thing, but in copyright there are exceptions to infringement when the public interest benefits from it. and given the pulic interest in the queen’s birthday i believe in this case the exception applies. and that’s why no royalties have to be paid. here its not a matter of favourism towards the blue blooded, but a (in my opinion) justified legal exception.

so that was the bubble i burst: its not about the person of the queen, its about the public interest in the happening.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39026 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:31:25 +0000 #comment-39026 "broadcasters, worldwide, pay fees to Performing Rights Organizations to obtain 'blanket licenses' that allow them to broadcast any song controlled by the PROs without fear of copyright infringement suits." What a nice way to put it. The fact is that broadcasters do not know what songs are "controlled". No list of sonngs are supllied. "Controlled" is the wrong word. "licensed" is the correct word. The Performing Rights Organizations do not control any song. The control (management) is done by the legal and beneficial owners. The legal owners is that which in essence has been hired by the real (beneficial) owner to manage the song bor the benefit of the real owner. Legal owners are frequently music publishers, who unfortunately mess up the management of the congs or steal their profits from the real, beneficial owners owners. Because licensees (broadcasters, restaurants, etc.) do not know which songs they can perform (no catalog is given), the so called blanket license is a fraud, a the licensee has no idea what it can perform. Licensee know this but accept the arrangement out of fear and are willing to pay protection money. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “broadcasters, worldwide, pay fees to Performing Rights Organizations to obtain ‘blanket licenses’ that allow them to broadcast any song controlled by the PROs without fear of copyright infringement suits.”

What a nice way to put it. The fact is that broadcasters do not know what songs are “controlled”. No list of sonngs are supllied.

“Controlled” is the wrong word. “licensed” is the correct word. The Performing Rights Organizations do not control any song. The control (management) is done by the legal and beneficial owners. The legal owners is that which in essence has been hired by the real (beneficial) owner to manage the song bor the benefit of the real owner. Legal owners are frequently music publishers, who unfortunately mess up the management of the congs or steal their profits from the real, beneficial owners owners.

Because licensees (broadcasters, restaurants, etc.) do not know which songs they can perform (no catalog is given), the so called blanket license is a fraud, a the licensee has no idea what it can perform. Licensee know this but accept the arrangement out of fear and are willing to pay protection money.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39025 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:57:37 +0000 #comment-39025 please show me exactly where in my article i refer to the RIAA. please show me exactly where in my article i refer to the RIAA.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39024 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:51:16 +0000 #comment-39024 my article is part tongue-in-cheek, part sarcastic, part rhetorical, and completely true and current with present-day events, as far as the facts i've been able to confirm. my aim was - sorry you didn't get it - to point out inconsistencies (as another reader here rightly concluded) in how and when the laws are administered - and to whom they're applied. besides my hatred for the neocon big music and movie cartels, i have a deep-rooted, almost innate abhorrence for anything regarded as "Royal" and the scams the blue-blood get away with. either the law is administered equally, or not at all. i never said or claimed that royalties were not paid. i also never claimed they were. i asked (sarcastically, rhetorically, etc) whether or not they had been paid, and if not, i discussed what i feel should be done as a consequence. some animals ARE NOT more equal than others. my bubble wasn't burst. :) sorry to burst yours. i just hate having to explain myself again and again. my article is part tongue-in-cheek, part sarcastic, part rhetorical, and completely true and current with present-day events, as far as the facts i’ve been able to confirm.

my aim was – sorry you didn’t get it – to point out inconsistencies (as another reader here rightly concluded) in how and when the laws are administered – and to whom they’re applied. besides my hatred for the neocon big music and movie cartels, i have a deep-rooted, almost innate abhorrence for anything regarded as “Royal” and the scams the blue-blood get away with. either the law is administered equally, or not at all.

i never said or claimed that royalties were not paid. i also never claimed they were. i asked (sarcastically, rhetorically, etc) whether or not they had been paid, and if not, i discussed what i feel should be done as a consequence.

some animals ARE NOT more equal than others.

my bubble wasn’t burst. :) sorry to burst yours. i just hate having to explain myself again and again.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39021 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:23:47 +0000 #comment-39021 well.. doesn't the doesn't the official performance on the occasion of military marches and such benefit from an exemption in the UK 1988 act? i believe it does. so there the queen was in her right. sorry to burst your bubble.. (correct me if i'm wrong) well.. doesn’t the doesn’t the official performance on the occasion of military marches and such benefit from an exemption in the UK 1988 act?
i believe it does. so there the queen was in her right.
sorry to burst your bubble.. (correct me if i’m wrong)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8605/comment-page-1#comment-39020 Reader's Write Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:23:36 +0000 #comment-39020 well.. doesn't the doesn't the official performance on the occasion of military marches and such benefit from an exemption in the UK 1988 act? i believe it does. so there the queen was in her right. sorry to burst your bubble.. (correct me if i'm wrong) well.. doesn’t the doesn’t the official performance on the occasion of military marches and such benefit from an exemption in the UK 1988 act?
i believe it does. so there the queen was in her right.
sorry to burst your bubble.. (correct me if i’m wrong)

]]>