Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
Why can't you?
|
Consult a lawyer or local cop to explain it to you. I'm not a lawyer, but if you send me a reasonably equivalent fee ($300/hr , 2 hour minimum, see my sig for payment options) I will be happy to explain. It will be, as a wise man once said, "One paragraph of stunning clarity."
Quote:
|
As for the Bruce Springsteen example, the song had already been published. He was exerting his rights as the copyright holder.
|
You are, I hope, aware that under our current laws, copyright exists the moment a copyrightable work is set in tangible form? That it currently does NOT require publication, or even a copyright notice, for exactly the reasons I support? He was INDEED exercising his right as the copyright holder, and he could have done so even if he never published the song (for the unimaginative who insist on examples--and will no doubt contrive and offer a toothbrush solution to the example that doesn't address the real issue-- say for example the recording engineer who made the first demo tape with the Boss, and who also volunteered on the campaign, liked the song and wanted to use it. Springsteen could STILL say no by his right as the copyright holder. That's the way it actually is, and I think that's important to preserve in any reform.
For those who only care about money: that protection also prevents that engineer from recording his own version of the song and releasing it before the Boss gets around to publishing his version.