Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   Anonymous coward, 29 Sep 2003 @ 9:02am

   
   

   Covers = compulsory licensing

   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?

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

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

   
   

   Re: Covers = compulsory licensing

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

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Anonymous coward, 29 Sep 2003 @ 10:40am

   
   

   Re: Covers = compulsory licensing

   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.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

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

   
   

   Re: Covers = compulsory licensing

   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.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]