>>>Shouldn't a person who wrote a song..or from a legal
>>>standpoint...shouldn't the person who has the copyright
>have
>>>to approve of someone performing their song or recording
>it?
>>
>>
>>no. copyright law exists to ENCOURAGE innovation via the
>use
>>of other ppl's work. but it also seeks to protect the
>>interest of the producers of various works by ensuring that
>>they will be credited and paid for their work. if artists
>had
>>to get permission from the copyright holder before they're
>>able to record or play a cover, we'd rarely have any cover
>>songs recorded or played. via copyright law, we as a
>society
>>have decided to encourage the playing and recording of cover
>>songs.
>
>
>I can buy that argument.....but I'm wondering why that rule
>should apply to music and not other forms of creative art.
>
>and I think you're leaving out a very important point. The law
>is not what it is to promote innovation through other people's
>work as much as it's a way for the RECORD COMPANY or the
>entity that controls the copyright of an artist song to
>continue to benefit financially beyond that one artist.
>Artists come and go...but a solid piece of work can continue
>to benefit the record company beyond the duration of one
>artist.

They get nothing, ziltch, nada. In fact record companies don't want covers because that will take away from the sales of their master recording. Covers have existed before record companies existed. Artists cover songs because they love the songs or artists not because record companies are forcing them to. That's a complete fallacy. Cover bands don't exist because of some record company conspiracy...they exist because musicians are fans of other musicians and want to play their songs it's that simple.
>
>
>
>
>>>how does it make him an asshole to think that he should
>have
>>>that right??
>>
>>b/c he does the same thing, #1.
>>
>>#2 b/c he's seeking to stifle artistic expression that
>doesn't
>>harm him, his work, or his pocketbook. in fact, covers of
>his
>>songs probably tend to help expose his music to a wider
>>audience, increase ppl's appreciation for his original
>>renderings, and result in various payments to him as the
>>copyright holder.
>
>I'm honestly not buying the "using other people's work
>encourages innovation" argument. Why can't people innovate
>their own original work?? I think this has really hurt the
>music in that there is too much relying on other people's work
>
>
>
>>
>>>seems pretty reasonable to me...
>>>
>>>and his examples of music being the only artform like that
>>is
>>>telling...
>>
>>he's wrong about that. copyrights work this way
>w/everything.
>> it's part of the point of copyright law.
>
>So I can put someone else's painting in my art show without
>asking them??? I can use Snoopy in a commercial without
>getting perimmission from the Schulz family?
>>
>>
>