Re: [OT] Re: Copyright....
The time sequences just changed under US law, actually. This was due to
heavy lobbying by outfits such as Disney, which was about to see the
early Mickey Mouse films fall into the public domain. There is some
action in the federal courts on the constitutionality of this.
The copyright of a performance, assuming some minimal creativity and
originality, inheres in the performer. The copyright of a work of music
and lyrics inheres in the composer and lyricist. However, the performer,
not the listener, has liability to the composer and lyricist. A
performance for which the music and lyrics are in the public domain is
subject to copyright as a performance, no differently than if the music
and lyrics were not in the public domain.
This has no relevance to software. If computers executing software add an
element of creativity and originality to their execution, such that the
execution is protectable by copyright, we would be in very big trouble.
On 2000-05-16 at 11:01 +0100, Stuart Auchterlonie wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:12:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
* * *
> > Well, there may be legitimate use for things like classical music.
> > (Unless just performing a classic peice gives you copyright power over
> > that performance -- dunno.)
> IANAL but there is a distinction between copyright of the piece and
> copyright of the production of the piece.
> >From what I remember it's 50 years on the piece, and 25 years on the
> produced item.
> Why do you think Monty Python picked the song they did ?
> Out of copyright = cheap.