Tom Brace Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 now if we can just get Malaguena on that list.... Agrees! Is Bill Holman all Bob Barker on us? I can't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plsander Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I disagree. Someone's property lives on and should help support heirs and foundations and other causes, in this case, Mr. Bernstein supported during his life. It was his creativity that counted. Not some drum corps' hack chopped up arrangement of his brilliance. Bernstein, and anyone who creates, bases their creations on the works that came before them -- the music, art, images that they were exposed to before and while composing. No one creates in isolation from a blank slate. It is only equitable, from a societal standpoint, that at some point these new works (Bernstein's, Disney's, etc) must enter the public domain. Or should Shakespear's heirs be knocking on Laurent's and Sondheim's doors looking for royalties for the ideas and motifs in the lyrics and script? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I disagree. Someone's property lives on and should help support heirs and foundations and other causes, in this case, Mr. Bernstein supported during his life. It was his creativity that counted. Not some drum corps' hack chopped up arrangement of his brilliance. where do we draw the line? 70 years is extreme. There is a reason we have a 'public domain' concept, and 70 years was not intended when we initially started writing copyright laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd_Star_Brigade Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 where do we draw the line? 70 years is extreme. There is a reason we have a 'public domain' concept, and 70 years was not intended when we initially started writing copyright laws. At most, and I say this as a composer, 50 years should be the maximum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwmoore001 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 This is bad because drum corps actually needs more "West Side Story" in the future? Why does Drum Corps need something/someone that doesn't want them? I think Drum Corps will be fine without them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) 70 years was not intended when we initially started writing copyright laws. Enter Sonny Bono and the Walt Disney Corporation. All you needed was a Congressman who had copyrighted material in his name and a major corporation who stood to lose a lot of money if the laws weren't changed to extend their copyright. When the 120 years for Disney's Mouse are up (corporate rights being a little different than individual rights), look for Disney to find another pet Congressman to try to again try to extend their copyright in perpetuity. Edited September 16, 2009 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Bernstein, and anyone who creates, bases their creations on the works that came before them -- the music, art, images that they were exposed to before and while composing. No one creates in isolation from a blank slate. It is only equitable, from a societal standpoint, that at some point these new works (Bernstein's, Disney's, etc) must enter the public domain. Or should Shakespear's heirs be knocking on Laurent's and Sondheim's doors looking for royalties for the ideas and motifs in the lyrics and script? I have no argument with public domain after 70 years. None. But, until that time, an artist and his/her heirs have the right to retain their property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd_Star_Brigade Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I have no argument with public domain after 70 years. None. But, until that time, an artist and his/her heirs have the right to retain their property. An heir has no right to something that touches so many people. Music is not a tangible asset. It is a spiritual experience, and a language which conveys what spoken word can not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phrenchy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I have no argument with public domain after 70 years. None. But, until that time, an artist and his/her heirs have the right to retain their property. The problem arises when it is not the artist or his heirs who retain the rights to their intellectual property, but copyright becomes a form of corporate subsidy. Article I, section 8:8 of the constitution states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" "Authors and Inventors" is representative of individual people, not collective entities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Meh, I've had enough Bernstien to last me two lifetimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.