Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Covers = compulsory licensing

   

   Anonymous coward, Sep 29th, 2003 @ 9:02am

   
   

   Yo! At least in the US, covered songs (which you seem to favor) are a case of mandatory licensing (which you're against). It appears to work the same way in India, judging by the refernece to "sometimes (illegally) underreporting units sold for the purpose of paying royalties back to the original artist."
   
   Why is mandatory licensing good for covered songs but not for other things?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Covers = compulsory licensing

   

   Mike (profile), Sep 29th, 2003 @ 10:15am

   
   

   I never said I agree that compulsory licensing makes sense for cover songs either.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Covers = compulsory licensing

   

   Anonymous coward, Sep 29th, 2003 @ 10:40am

   
   

   Well, what do you think about song covers? Based on the wording of the original item it certainly sound like you think the proposed Indian law is a bad idea. If you don't think covers should require permission of the original writer, and you don't think compulsory licensing is a good idea, what's left besides no copyright on songs?
   I'd like to know what the rule should be about covering songs. Maybe there's an alternative I've missed.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Covers = compulsory licensing

   

   Mike (profile), Sep 29th, 2003 @ 11:17am

   
   

   Why rely on copyright?
   
   Why not rely on your ability to make music better? Or admit that others might be able to make your music better.
   
   As an example, look at the story of a bassist who decided to add bass lines to songs by the band the White Stripes. You can also see more about that story in this video.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment