[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The Corporations involved have had both the time (over 20 years) and the resources to have prevented this situation.

Very true, but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by RSE

Life + 50 to Life + 70 doesn't benefit one creative artist - by definition.

This point is rather debatable, but also a separate topic that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I fully support criticizing any organization when it does something wrong. In this case, the flaw is that the labels exploited an aspect of the structure to deny an artist the royalties they were contractually obligated to pay. However, again: this has nothing to do with copyrights -- other than that the artists are using copyright laws to protect their own rights.

Originally Posted by RSE

They want more and more Draconian controls, lobby left [etc]... These are the people to whom we should look to for fair and equitable answers to copyright issues?

If you catch a thief red-handed and the thief says "stealing is wrong," does that somehow prove that stealing is in fact right?

I concur that record labels aren't exactly holding the moral high ground here. But again, record companies -- large and small -- would abuse or abide by whatever system was present, regardless of the actual specific structures of copyright, based upon their own moral character rather than legal constructs. (E.g. I don't see a lot of people screaming that Blue Note Records is a vile corporation because they've made enough of a profit to survive a few decades of operation....)

Originally Posted by RSE

Dead people don't create! But corporation keep milking and milking and milking....

Y'know, the hatred of "Corporations" for the desire to make a profit is getting rather tiresome.

The idea that the artists are only possible individuals who should financially benefit from the sale of a creative work is -- how should I put this politely -- an analysis bereft of nuance. For example, a musician often requires resources, financial and structural, to make and distribute a professional recording. Really, how many musicians will be great songwriters and performers and recording engineers and at making a great master and making good cover art and doing their own press photos and booking gigs and getting radio play and hauling gear, doing their own accounting and marketing and promotions, ad infinitum?

It is easier to do it yourself nowadays than it was 20 years ago -- but it's still exceedingly rare for an artist who hasn't already achieved major success with a major label to go it on their own, and get national attention.

Again, I do not see any justification for violating a contract and preventing an artist from their royalties. However, record labels and publishers put significant resources on the line to get content into your "greedy" hands, eyes and ears. The labels take a risk on the artists they work with; even a platinum-selling artist can spend huge sums on a new recording and it can bomb. In exchange for the risks they take, they have the right to earn a fair profit. Not a profit that violates their agreements, but a profit nonetheless.