[Air-L] music no more (I hope)

[Ed Lamoureux]

On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Gilbert B. Rodman wrote:

> My
> point -- sloppily phrased though it may have been from a legal
> perspective -- was the songwriter doesn't get to play gatekeeper here
> (which was, as I understood it anyway, the point Ed's post was  
> making),

Gil,
you are correct here. I am sorry that I made clumsy use of an  
inappropriate analogy. I should NOT have jumped to music as example  
as the complexities of how what sorts of rights are managed in music  
is quite different than with words.  Though the songwriter usually  
doesn't get to play gatekeeper - -  some assigned representative  
often does it for them . . . and again, you are right . .. the  
gatekeeping is not over WHETHER or not someone can play the piece.  
Rather, the issue is over WHAT is it is going to cost them to reuse  
it in a particular way, in a specific medium, at some time. That is,  
though "prior permission" is not part of the copyright protection in  
most situations regarding music (though it IS the issue with regard  
to some--for example, sampling of recorded music), various "license  
or royalty required agreements" to record or perform the piece are in  
place.

And my basic point was that person B can't take person A's creative  
product and just do anything with it that they want because person A  
DOES have a variety of copyright protections for that work even in  
the case when they've already taken the piece public.

But again . . . dragging music into this was a horrid argumentative  
strategy on my part and I'm really sorry that I headed off that way.  
Thanks with your patience.



Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Multimedia Program
<http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html>
<http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/>
AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam
Second Life: Professor Beliveau