Originally Posted by: RazboThat's interesting. And way longer than I thought!
[/quote]
It is a result of trying to balance the intellectual property rights of creators with a reasonable amount of finite time.
[QUOTE=Razbo]
... I personally have a bit of an issue with people profiting post-humously from artists. I think it (music et al) should become public domain upon their death. I don't really like the idea of Sony cashing in on Hendrix, for example. Or what's going on with Zappa's stuff.

That's exactly why there are issues. :)

Zappa is a perfect case. He died too young due to cancer. He built a successful maverick career and was still good for many more productive earning years. But that life was cut short. His wife & kids depended upon him as the family provider. Gail Zappa worked at home on the Zappa mail order business for years after he got out from under his Warner contract.

I've heard FZ was extremely clear about his intentions regarding his family retaining control of the rights of his music. How else would his family survive? The family that worked with him & helped him achieve his own success?

As far as the Hendrix stuff, that is a case of Hendrix's family members leveraging it in order to make money. Sony Corp. (or whoever) can only do it at the permission of the legal copyright heir. So, of course, Sony is "in it for the money", why shouldn't they be?

My issue is the fact that family members that seem to have "come out of the woodwork" after Hendrix's death are in control of the work. Did Hendrix choose these people as heirs? Probably not. He died young & unexpectedly. Were these people truly loved family members that depended upon Hendrix for support as in wife & kids? Were they proper heirs? Probably not. But make no mistake, they are ones cashing in on Hendrix's legacy, more so than any "greedy company".

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941127&slug=1944103

To return to main issue, I think the "extra time" after the author's death is supposed to represent the immediate family, spouse, children, loved ones, etc. that form approximately one generation beyond the author's life.

Extending anything into infinity is absurd & unrealistic, because there is no such thing as actual infinity. Therefore, there has to be some limit set as a cutoff point.

So, I think the copyright law is an attempt to find the balance. Make sense?

In some cases it does get strange. Some investors buy songs. The Beatles famously sold the rights to many of their tunes in the 60s. Michael Jackson bought a lot of them after he got wealthy. That left Paul McCartney in the bizarre position of having to try and buy back his own tunes. And in some cases being unable to!

I've had issue with older songs (jazz standards) that are owned by third parties that have no stake in the creation, no relation to the creator, but manage to extend copyright purely by legislative fiat.

For example, Duke Ellington & George Gershwin & their immediate families have been dead for decades. But copyrights on their tunes are still being "renewed" over and again by third parties. :confused: I know they are able to make money on them, and that's great.

But, I'd like to teach them on the site, for example. Or just play them & rearrange them without fear of copyright violation. I'd like to make money playing them too! :) I'd have no problem asking or paying Duke or George or their kids. But none of them are around.

So, it's frustration that the law is sometimes applied non-objectively & inconsistently. That much I have some moral contentions with.

In any event, the bottom line is that the law is written as is. It is a reasonable solution to a very tricky situation. And I also appreciate it because it is a law that protects my livelihood & how I provide for my family. :)