OT: Difficult copyright issue.

Comments

filmy wrote on 12/21/2003, 1:59 PM
>>> Rudy and Kevin both say that Drew Forsyth was the drummer on the Japan/original recordings. The CD says the same thing. <<<

Liks I said - Skip was mainly uncredited on the album, CD's weren't around at the time so I can't comment on the re-issues by Rhino or anyone else as to what the notes say. And also like I said - maybe they just don't want anyone to really know it wasn't the drummer in the band who played on the recordings.

I didn't mean that Frankie asked 'who the ~blank~ was Skip' in the literal sense, I was being more like you were - in the overall sense. Maybe Skip was a "work for hire" so to speak. I know there were not hard feelings, at least I never heard Skip bad mouth anyone (Ok, maybe Kevin here and there but that was sort of what everyone was doing at the time - Kevin wasn't even in the band at the time Skip introduced me to Frankie). My educated guess it was more done as friendly helping out, as I said as well - Skip was/is very humble as well so he wasn't the type to go around bragging about who he had played with or who he was friends with.

My own personal 1 to 1 with members of QR on a business level was when the band was in that "Kevin you can't use the name" mode. Carlos had just come back and I have no recolection of who the drummer and bass player were at the time. Kevin was putting together a small club tour and I got asked about going out as bass tech - "Not much money but all the drugs and p***y you want" was how it was presented to me. I said 'no thanks' and would do the same today. Not in it for either, not that I am in in for the money - but being offered a job like that isn't somehting I would consider no matter who it was.
winrockpost wrote on 12/21/2003, 2:47 PM
I fuss everytime our company has to go see our lawyer,, fuss again when I pay the bill ,,,, But, reading through just a bit of this mess and I remember why we visit the old sh#%.
Spot|DSE wrote on 12/21/2003, 3:08 PM
You've described Kevin pretty well to a "T." Bass player on the tour was probably Chuck Wright, and as far as I know, Frankie did all the tours except for a couple club tours. It's very likely that a hired gun was brought into the early sessions, and it's equally likely that more than one drummer was brought in. In terms of Rudy, Frankie, and the 20 years of QR DVD, the DVD doesn't go back as far as QR1 or 2, it only goes as far as Metal Health, which was Rudy and Frankie's first record with the band, while Forsyth even did one track (I understand anyway) on that record, that was the formation of the 'real' QR since it was the formation that took it to the charts. But....There were far more records with other band members before and after those 2 records.
Rudy played bass on much of the QRII record as well, but he wasn't credited, it was entirely credited to Kelly. So, I guess what I'm saying is that it's no surprise that whomever Skip might be, it's not entirely unusual he wasn't credited.
Alan White wasn't credited for much of his work with the Beatles either.
Sucks sometimes, doesn't it?
DavidMcKnight wrote on 12/21/2003, 5:16 PM
Wait a minute....who's Alan White and what did he do w. the Beatles?
filmy wrote on 12/21/2003, 5:27 PM
I had some free time and decided to go through some of the mags that have been pilling up here. I was reading the November 2003 "eMEDIA" and found "The Editors Spin" editorial very interesting, and it fits in with much of this thread. Stephen Nathans is mainly talking about the DCMA but I found a few things he mentioned important - in the ironic sense. He is talking about the TV show Happy Days in relation to a dream he had...and than he comes out with this comment which is perfect - "In all those years I watched Happy Days, I never once saw Fonzie put a quater in [The Jukebox], nor did I ever see him foist 'Splish Splash' on an empty dance floor." I found that concept amazing because I really never thought about it in those terms...ever. In today's PC society most everyone seems to be so cautious of what is said in almost all forms of the arts, and if they aren't PC they get chastised for it, I wonder if the Fonz could even exist the same way - not paying to listen to music? *GASP* That is stealing gosh darnit - we can't have a 'hero' be thief! Send in the Feds! Have Arnold arrested at the least, for allowing this sort of theft to take place right under his nose!

A bit later Nathans offers this thought - "Nobody ever came after Fonzie for cheating that jukebox - Not Arnold, not Bobby Darin, nor the gangsters who controled the publishing on his song, nor the fountain-pen flichers who owned all those songs Darin name dropped in 'Splish Splash' - 'Lollipop' (Archie Bleyer), 'Peggy Sue' (Norman Petty), 'Good Golly Miss molly' (John Marascalco)'." LOL - again - perfect and something I had never thought of. While the show certianly treid to have an uside and a good moral point - this whole idea of Fonzie stealing music and not paying for it was never addressed. But somehting interesting that is pointed out in this editorial - "It's been said in this context before but I'll say it again: it's no crime to take what's already been stolen."

Like I said in the subject - an interesting slant.
farss wrote on 12/21/2003, 5:29 PM
Thing is I think all of us have a 'lawyer' within us.
It's called many things but we all know that 'this doesn't feel right' feeling. A few moments quiet contemplation costs nothing and usually gives you the same answer as any high priced lawyer.
In fact the ones I've had dealings with gave me much that answer.
To look at it another way, if you feel the need to seek legal counsel because you're unsure if something is right, it probably isn't.
Spot|DSE wrote on 12/21/2003, 9:09 PM
Alan White is a drummer best known for his work with Yes, but he also played on several Beatles albums, most notably "Let It Be." He wasn't given much credit for his work until he started doing sessions for John Lennon, including "Imagine." George Harrison once called him "the most emotional drummer ever." I was privileged to get to work with him on a loop library several years back and then again on a Jon Anderson cut that was on Requiem of the Americas, a tribute to Native America. He then played drums on my "Voices" CD in 1999 on a tribute to my son. He resides in Seattle, but still maintains a home near London.
http://alanwhite.net/discography.html
Depending on who's interviews and commentaries you read, it's generally felt that Apple wouldn't permit any drummer to be credited other than Ringo. Don't know if that's so, but...See the discography, you'll get a surprise at how much he's done.
he taught me an interesting trick for counting 5/4 time, as I'm dyslexic at odd meters. Just sing "Hip-po-pot-a-mus" while performing the piece, and the timing falls right into place.
He is a classic, awesome drummer and person. Incredibly human and kind.
Grazie wrote on 12/22/2003, 12:44 AM
I aint no lawyer.

. . . . .Perhaps I've missed the irony here - okay, there's a first for everything I guess - BUT, here in the Old Country " . . . . it's no crime to take what's already been stolen." as far as I'm aware and don't take this as legal correct, someone who does this in the UK and has or intends to "sell" on, is called a "Fence" and that person is in reciept of "Stolen Goods" and the last time I looked it is an offence and the goods are confiscated. If it can be proved that that person was intending or had in fact passed on such "items" that person is duly charged and would recieve the appropriate sentence. But, as I say, maybe I've missed the ironic importance of your post Filmy?

Best regards

Grazie
busterkeaton wrote on 12/22/2003, 4:06 AM
All this talk about Ozzy makes want to tell one of my favorite anecdotes. For the punchline to work I first have to find out how much the listener knows about Black Sabbath.

Years ago I went to my local video store to rent Heavenly Creatures, the first "serious" movie by Peter Jackson, who now everyone knows for Lord of the Rings, but back then was a fairly unknown except to cult movie fans because he had made some horror/sci-fi movies.

The clerk at the strore is wearing an Iron Madien t-shirt. He's always wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt. He has skull rings on every finger. I don't think I've ever really had a conversation with him. So I bring Heavenly Creatures to the counter and he perks right up.
"Do you like Peter Jackson? Have you seen Dead Alive? That's the greatest movie ever."
"Yeah, I heard about that, but I've never seen it. I'll have to check it out one day."
"You have to see it, you have to. It's...It's...."

He goes and hunts down the box for me and brings it back to me.

"You have to see this movie...It's....it's ...IT'S THE TONY IOMMI OF MOVIES!"





Tony with Ozzy -1973
JohnnyRoy wrote on 12/22/2003, 5:04 AM
> So, RIAA was able to get a royalty instilled into replicate media to 'cover' the losses due to replication. Make sense?

Yep, I hade forgotten about the royalty on cassettes. It’s strange how the copyrights are different for different media. (e.g., LP to cassette is OK while LP to CD is not) This may be good to point out in your article. This really confuses the issue because, the laws may be black and white, but they sure are confusing for consumers.

Re: Allan White. I saw Yes at Radio City Music Hall last year here in NYC and Allan was in rare form. Actually the whole band was spot on. Rick Wakeman played the Mighty Wurlitzer. I wish I had that on video! They were supposed to tape the European leg of the tour and make a DVD but I haven’t seen it yet and Rick on the Wurlitzer is now lost forever, only to be remembered by those of us that were there. (sigh)

~jr
filmy wrote on 12/22/2003, 8:03 AM
Actually I didn't like Dead Alive as much as I like Bad Taste, now there is a great low budget creative film. When Peter Jackson got the gig on the LOTR films everyone sort of went "Ok, why?" because we all thought about non stop blood baths and drinking alien vomit and sheep blowing up. LOL!

To Grazie - I think you did miss the irony. You are taking the comment out of context as to how Stephen Nathans said it. The irony of the comment, IMO, that Nathans made, as he clearly said: "in this context", was that in the TV show Happy Days the Fonz was always 'sharing music' and never paid for it (irony number 1)...one of the bits of music the Fonz liked to 'share' was by Bobby Darin - "Splish Splash", that song, whose publishing was controled by "gangsters" (irony 2), in itself was a combination of many other songs (irony 3) - thusly he made the statment "it's no crime to steal what's already been stolen."

I guess another way to think about it is something like - say I watch the latest vampire film and decide to re-write it as my own. Lets say in today's day and age I am hauled off to court because I ripped off the story and didn't pay for the rights and/or give credit to the 'original' author. So now the other films creator comes in and admits that they saw another Vampire film and just re-wrote that, and than that films director/writer comes in and says they did the same...and so on and so on. Unless every single person down the line who stole the 'first' vampire story was sued and fined than one could draw the same conclusion - in this context, it's no crime to steal what has already been stolen.

To me however the point of my post and what I found most ironic is just the concept of the Fonz and that jukebox. Like I pointed out I had never thought about it in those terms - that he never paid to hear music and that no one ever came out to get him because of doing so.
jazzvalve wrote on 12/22/2003, 8:15 AM
now I have to leave my respect for you billyboy. SPOT helps alot. you said you take medications. go take some more an say youre' sorry. he' s tried to help you too. I'm sick to see you say those things.
Grazie wrote on 12/22/2003, 8:19 AM
Ah, go it! Thanks filmy. G
busterkeaton wrote on 12/22/2003, 8:24 AM
Filmy, have you seen Heavenly Creatures? It's very good. Kate Winslet's first movie I believe.
filmy wrote on 12/22/2003, 8:48 AM
>>> Filmy, have you seen Heavenly Creatures?<<<

Yes I have. I liked it, didn't love it and didn't hate it. I didn't have any sort of expectations either so I wasn't going into it expecting some blood soaked orgy of celluloid.

Not that is has anything to do with anything here but a film I really really loved is by another Peter - Picnic at Hanging Rock, directed by Peter Weir. That film is just very moody - the whole film has a dreamy feel to it.
BillyBoy wrote on 12/22/2003, 9:36 AM
The irony of this thread is some think little ditys like "Happy Birthday" sung at someone's birthday party at Denny's should be protected by copyright and the "owner" of the "song" be paid for its singing. Yet some of the same people supporting that extreme view think its perfectly fine to write a book based on you know what and say oh that's different.

It isn't if it is legal or not. Rather does such nonsense fly in the face of common sense? Do I really have to ask?
Spot|DSE wrote on 12/22/2003, 10:15 AM
Hmmm...
So popularity means that the owner of the song should give up all rights to the song. That makes sense. Not...
1. Compose a song, shoot a film, write a book, invent a technology
2. Invest money, years of time, and capitalize on a lifetime of education in making that song, film, book, or technology known to the public.
3. When it starts to recoup it's investment, turn it all into public domain, thus obviating all the effort that went into it in the first place. (can you do sarcasm?)
Where then, is the incentive for doing anything creative? Creating for the love of the craft is one thing, but it doesn't put food on the table or pay the rent. Thus, those that have the drive and the talent to succeed at various levels climb to the top of a very difficult hill. They have the balls to expose their work to the world at the risk of being pissed on or praised. But at least they've made it to the point where they CAN be pissed on or praised. Which is why I can take you pissing on me, Billy. Like me or not, appreciate my work or not, I've perspired to get to where I am, and at some level, certain groups of people appreciate my work enough to pay for it, thereby giving me the funding I need for my next endeavor. That's called capitalism, Billy. The foundation of this country's very existence. After all, my people learned it from yours. While not a difficult concept to grasp, (at least not for most) it certainly is a brilliant one. Reward those who are tenacious and creative. Tolerate the lazy and uncreative. Encourage the new while learning from the old.
Billyboy, you claim to be a proud American. Do you know what the Constitution says about copyright?? The Constitution of the United States Article I, Section 8, clause 8;
Even our forefathers knew there would be those that were incapable of being creative, but would pass themselves off as being so by stealing the works of others, well before the days of CD's, DVD's, or mass-printed music. "Happy Birthday's" melody's composers daughters are still alive, the copyright was assigned. Duh. Whether it became popular or not doesn't matter. Popularity does not dictate whether something is free or not. Copyright is not a democratic process. You are welcome to sing the words all you want, but you can't use that melody in association with it. (This was successfully defended in 1934, Warner now holds the rights) You are also free to sing this yourself, to your family members, in a public place. Even the waiters may sing it, if it's not recorded for publication. It was recommended as a deminimus issue in 1989 when Warner bought the rights. It's that a commercial venture may not use the song. You may disagree with the length of "limited time" but that length of time was decided by democratic process. Rather than yapping and whining, why not get your butt in gear and attempt to make positive changes via NARAS, LARAS, RIAA, the Librarian of Congress, petitions, public speeches. Write your Congressman and Senator. That's due process, Billy. That's how things get done. Things don't get done by throwing accusations of plagiarism or copyright violation such as you keep insinuating here. Rather than bitch about it, do something about it. Otherwise, you are a meaningless whine in a sea of noise.

"Those that don't believe in protecting intellectual property have none."
RexA wrote on 12/22/2003, 10:53 AM
Funny, I was thinking just yesterday how Billyboy was pretty well behaved lately.

Seems to me that Spot has just been attempting to share his experience and research about a subject that most of us find complicated and unpleasant. I see nothing in his tone that has been anything but resonsive to questions that were asked or statements that were made.

Billy, if you want to believe the world is flat, you are welcome to believe that. Many of us would rather hear recent scientific data that says it ain't so. Go on believing what you want, but I wish you wouldn't attack the messengers who are giving you other information.

When you attack or insult people and they get upset, either you never meant it that way, or they are thin skinned. When someone has an opinion different from yours, they are pompous or beligerant.

This pattern is becoming all too predictable.
farss wrote on 12/22/2003, 12:08 PM
As SPOT has said we can all get hot under the collar, maybe we could even convince him or not that we should all be free to do what we want with music and it'll matter not one iota, the laws the law, you break it you pay the price. You don't like it, protest about it, burn effigies of record company execs or whatever else is appropriate. Kind of funny when you think about it, most of the countries where you can be made to dissappear for doing that are the ones where copyright is meaningless.

What I hear very little said about are location fees. When I first had an interest in moving images the local authorities would go out of their way to help you. Now that Hollywood has come to town this has changed big time, every local authority is trying to extract as much as they can from just about everyone that takes a lens cap off on their turf. Throw into that mix the local public liability issue and the spectacular collapse of an insurance company and you have a pretty potent mix.

Also I have a copyright issue that I really don't understand, I'm not asking for a free lagal opinion BTW. I'm told that copyright on movies has to be registered with some organistaion in LA. A fee is payable periodically to maintain that copyright. If I fail to pay that fee when it falls due then at 1 minute past midnight that movie becomes public domain. How does that affect our works? If I don't register my video do I have no protection? Or is my work protected under normal copyright law and if so why would (did?) anyone pay for protection and then let it lapse, it seems many movies have now become public domain.
Spot|DSE wrote on 12/22/2003, 12:32 PM
Copyright in the US is registered with the LOC, www.loc.gov
Once registered, depending on the work copyrighted, it's done. No one in LA has anything to do with it.
Further, the moment you create a work in a tangible form, ie; on something other than in your head, then it's protected. Registering it provides you specific reparations or avenues of reparation should the copyright be violated, but in truth, the copyright is in force the moment you produce a 'tangible evidence' of the work. You are also no longer compelled to use the copyright symbol for new copyrighted works as of 1989. I can't speak to the location fees issue, I'm sure Australia has it's own regulatory commission of some sort. David Hague would know a lot about that. You can find him on the DMN.
BillyBoy wrote on 12/22/2003, 1:29 PM
No SPOT, not the popularity, its just STUPID what a copyright can protect. Lets's take a closer look:

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday dear SPOT,
Happy Birthday to you.

I posted that so you know the nonsense you're trying to defend.

A grand total of SIX different words, several repeated, is considered a "song" entitled to full copyright protection.

LOL!

In case you still don't get it yet, I'm arguing with the insanity of the law, not with you. If the above is something that even remotely approaches :creative, you for sure define the word differently than I do.

Nobody pisssing on you SPOT, You seem to be pissing on yourself if anything showing you can't control your anger over something as looney as trying to defend something as simplistic as Happy Birthday deserving copyright protection. And clearly you are the one whining and the one that's obviously angry. I made a point. You don't like it so you need to attack me. There are times when you may want to go to war, others times when you should just let it go. I guess you want to go to war. Go alone, I got better things to do than try to reason with someone that's closed his mind on this issue.


Spot|DSE wrote on 12/22/2003, 1:39 PM
You bet I'll defend copyrights, because the minute those rights are diminished, the camel's nose is under the tent.
Besides, I'm famous for defending dumb ideas. I've even defended some of yours in several instances, Billyboy.
vitalforces wrote on 12/22/2003, 2:05 PM
WOW. This thread should get a prize for--sheesh, I don't know what to call it. The Octopus Award.

It's a snapshot of the personalities who contribute to this distinguished Forum, even including the squabbles that a family would have in a holiday season.

So in honor of family squabbles everywhere: Happy Holidays to all. I love you guys.
farss wrote on 12/22/2003, 2:14 PM
Thanks for the link.
It seems what I was talking about applies to works registered prior to 1964. They were copyright for 28 years and if you let that lapse it could not be renewed.
The system now as you rightly pointed out is quite different although registration still seem like a good idea.