31 Jan
2007
31 Jan
'07
midnight
On 31 Jan 2007 at 1:43, Warren Wolfe wrote:
First, there is no doubt whatsoever that "The
Star-Spangled Banner"
was new words over a drinking song written in, ironically enough, 1776.
Read about it here: http://www.colonialmusic.org/Resource/Anacreon.htm .
On the other hand, that was the normal practice of the time, and
"ripoff" doesn't really apply.
"Ripoff" was the rule of the land in those days, especially for music-
-read the correspondence of an angry and frustrated G.F. Handel.
Would that we had the 14+14 copyright duration today instead of Mary
Bono's 90 years--it is said that the good congresswoman was
disappointed to learn that a perpetual copyright would probably be
unconstitutional. Apparently no one thought to comment that her
legislation was a very clear conflict of interest.
There are some who propose bumping the expiration out 10 years every
10 years or so, giving, in effect, a perpetual copyright. Can you
imagine the furor if patents were given a similar duration?
At any rate, perhaps music publishers are a special case of
knucklehead. I do wish the OP luck with the suits at Macmillan. If
they're anything like the weasels at Bugs Bunny Corp., he'll need it.
Cheers,
Chuck