Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:44, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> The songs are not works for hire (despite the efforts of a former 
> congressional staffer to slip that one in a bill as a rider...now an RIAA 
> lawyer) so the question is only who owns the copyright. If the writer sold 
> the copyright totally then its life+70. In the case of recordings/studio 
> tapes/masters etc, those are the property of the studios and probably are 
> works for hire given the way recording deals work.

Even if the artists did the recording (etc.) on their own dime,
if they later enter into a label contract the labels charge them
for studio (often 10x what they actually pay to independent
studios) and class the work as "work for hire" owned entirely
and originally by the studio.

AFAIK, there is no copyright equivalent to "patent fraud."

-- 
| The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
| Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+