Less West Side Story in the future?

[CuriousMe]

Oh, DCP...

You guys are reading to much into what I wrote.

The true owner of art is not the man that composed it. The true owner is mother nature, herself. Mankind wouldnt exist, nor art neither, if we didnt evolve under the conditions that we did or even have life. In that essence, the true owner of music is not even nature, since nature only exists because of very specific conditions that came to be on our little marble. The resulting owner is the Earth and Sun itself, but thats not really correct, which leaves the solar system and galaxy. But, it would have never came to be if it wasn't for the Big Bang, so I hereby name nothing and everything as the true owner of art.

My summation: the true owner of art is the divine being. The collection of souls, living and non, that has always and will always exist in perfect silence (true harmony). So, does the Bernstein Estate own his works? Not anymore than the next man, since we are all connected to the divine being. Did Bernstein, own his works? Yes. On a material state in a very physical way. Any more so to let his heirs control their destiny? No.

That's a very poetic, idealistic thought....but the reality is that the Bernstein Estate does control the destiny of his work. At least according to our judicial system....and since the divine being hasn't given notice that he/she/it will sue for wrongful use of work yet....but the Estate is saying they will....well, I think I'll go with the guidelines imposed by the Estate.

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

That's a very poetic, idealistic thought....but the reality is that the Bernstein Estate does control the destiny of his work. At least according to our judicial system....and since the divine being hasn't given notice that he/she/it will sue for wrongful use of work yet....but the Estate is saying they will....well, I think I'll go with the guidelines imposed by the Estate.

of course.

anyone who has come in late and wants to know what the hell that was all about, should see my original comment and the crazy posts against that ensued. legal is legal, however anyone who says that the law is perfect in all respects to divine justice should probably have their head examined.

[year1buick]

of course.

anyone who has come in late and wants to know what the hell that was all about, should see my original comment and the crazy posts against that ensued. legal is legal, however anyone who says that the law is perfect in all respects to divine justice should probably have their head examined.

Yeah, those responses sure were crazy. Thanks for keeping us grounded.

[tommyfromhowardst]

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

This might help explain a few things. According to this research, corps playing Phillip Glass must have permission, since dude is still alive, correct?

It shows an automatic extension of 67 year for published works from 1964 to 1977. Unless the works were not published at all but I bet they were.

Or, this could not cover music at all, but the definition seems pretty clear. Thoughts?

[scottgordon]

The true owner of art is not the man that composed it. The true owner is mother nature, herself. Mankind wouldnt exist, nor art neither, if we didnt evolve under the conditions that we did or even have life. In that essence, the true owner of music is not even nature, since nature only exists because of very specific conditions that came to be on our little marble. The resulting owner is the Earth and Sun itself, but thats not really correct, which leaves the solar system and galaxy. But, it would have never came to be if it wasn't for the Big Bang, so I hereby name nothing and everything as the true owner of art.

YeGods, the same thing could be said about my house. So I guess that means your favorite drumcorps should be able to abscond with it too, if they wish?

[euponitone]

I'm waiting for the camera to be revealed, and everyone to have a laugh here. Come on people, could this possibly serious???

[MoonHill]

There is no such thing as advocating philosophy. It is a series of questions in which one searches for the truth in all things.

Oi vey. The following is a prime example of advocating a very specific philosophy:

The true owner of art is not the man that composed it. The true owner is mother nature, herself.

This is a specific philosophical stance. You advocate it via asserting it, and by defending it.

Do you understand the concept of being disagreed with?

My summation: the true owner of art is the divine being. The collection of souls, living and non, that has always and will always exist in perfect silence (true harmony). So, does the Bernstein Estate own his works? Not anymore than the next man, since we are all connected to the divine being. Did Bernstein, own his works? Yes. On a material state in a very physical way. Any more so to let his heirs control their destiny? No

And, once again, I disagree, very definitively. I disagree with the idea that the collection of souls has always existed (which is a matter of spiritual/religious worldview which, thankfully, has no bearing on the way concepts such as ownership are determined in the world), and I disagree with our collective connection with the divine being (another spiritual/religious stance which differs from a wide variety of the world), and I disagree with the concept that heirs have no claim to the rights which their ancestor specifically bequeathed to them.

Your spiritual world-view determines your stance on questions of copyright law, but apparently you manage to pick-and-choose the logical implications of your stance in such a way as to avoid saying that Bernstein gets to own his own work, while still satisfying your underlying desire to have free and unfettered access to artistic works that would be public domain under the copyright laws of the mid-1800s.

There are plenty of arguments for why copyright should expire at the death of the creator, but basing one on an extremely specific philosophical stance is a new one on me.

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

Your spiritual world-view determines your stance on questions of copyright law, but apparently you manage to pick-and-choose the logical implications of your stance in such a way as to avoid saying that Bernstein gets to own his own work, while still satisfying your underlying desire to have free and unfettered access to artistic works that would be public domain under the copyright laws of the mid-1800s.

Bernstein did own his own work. He is now dead.

May we move on?

[mobrien]

Bernstein did own his own work. He is now dead.

May we move on?

So you believe that once a person dies, they should lose the right to determine who benefits from their estate? Under this belief, once a person dies, everything they own is thenceforth public domain, and whoever wants their assets and properties can have them, regardless of what the deceased wanted.

Well that's one way of subverting fifty centuries of inheritance law....

Edited September 21, 2009 by mobrien

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

So you believe that once a person dies, they should lose the right to determine who benefits from their estate? Under this belief, once a person dies, everything they own is thenceforth public domain, and whoever wants their assets and properties can have them, regardless of what the deceased wanted.

Well that's one way of subverting fifty centuries of inheritance law....

So, you think that the heirs deserve the right to profit from their founders creation. I don't say thats a bad thing. But, I disagree, fundamentally, on the issue at hand that heirs can alter the guidelines of interpretation of that music by modern groups, meaning the creation of arrangements.