If - as I suspect is the case - The Beatles' cover versions of the songs mentioned were all properly credited and accounted to the writers then none of this is a good example of the argument you think it is.
The "rip-off" occurred when artists such as Led Zeppelin recorded what were essentially - and in some cases literally - cover versions of songs and claimed the credit (and royalties) for themselves. In the case of LZ some of the original writers, Willie Dixon for example, were eventually compensated but many never were.
AC above is correct, you've conflated two entirely different scenarios.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by felix.
If - as I suspect is the case - The Beatles' cover versions of the songs mentioned were all properly credited and accounted to the writers then none of this is a good example of the argument you think it is.
The "rip-off" occurred when artists such as Led Zeppelin recorded what were essentially - and in some cases literally - cover versions of songs and claimed the credit (and royalties) for themselves. In the case of LZ some of the original writers, Willie Dixon for example, were eventually compensated but many never were.
AC above is correct, you've conflated two entirely different scenarios.