Re: KopyrighTs

[henrik@eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry DeLuca @ The Bandykin Server)]

This whole Copyright issue is a bit more complicated.  The assumption
that the term "Copyright" or (C) - meaning C with a circle is true - but
applies only to *RELEASED* material.  Neither Kate Bush, Kate Bush Music Ltd.,
nor EMI (or any of its affiliates) have *RELEASED* this material, and they
are the only ones who can do so.  Yes, the Copyright laws are *very*
picky (someone in the US recently lost a Copyright infringement suit 
because they used (C) instead of C with a circle - arbitrary, yes, and
unfortunate, but people who are in this business (the music publishing
business) would do well to get themselves a good attorney who knows these
things.

Now, we would all love to believe that Kate Bush would take one look
at this obviously noble and charitable project and just say, "OK".
Legally, she can't.  Because, once it's been brought to her attention
that there is someone *responsible* for creating material for distribution
(in this case none other than our own Andrew Marvick) she is legally
required to defend her Copyright by legally notifying him to cease,
desist, etc.  If she doesn't, the material *will* go into the public
domain (this is why bootleggers never label anything with an address -
gobs of bootlegs show up every day, but you really can't do much 
legally to anyone except the people who are *producing* them - so they
stay out of the limelight).

Now, even if, all things considered, she were to decide that she was
willing to relinquish the copyright on all the unreleased material
(which may or may not be possible for her to do - it depends on her contract 
with EMI, who probably gets more than 50% of the publishing income on
her songs - typical arrangements for new artists get them substantially
less than that) there is a further fly in the ointment - There are
*FIVE* songs on that tape from _The Kick Inside_ and/or _Lionheart_.

And those most certainly are copyrighted as well.  Further, a course
of inaction from Kate Bush, her lawyers (solicitors), EMI, et. al., 
would result in those songs going into the public domain as well.  Bang -
no more publisher's royalties, no more record purchase royalties,
etc.  

Now before everyone carries on about how much the lawyers are in it for
the money, etc., let's remember who gets hurt by these (and other)
works of Kate Bush potentially going into the public domain.

	1.  EMI.  

	2.  Kate Bush.

	3.  The zillions of Kate Bush fans everywhere.

Why EMI?  They lose money.  They are a business.  There is nothing noble
about their endeavours, but there is nothing bad, either.  They support
and distribute Kate Bush's work (and that of other artists, like The
Beatles) because they make money.  If it's not profitable to them anymore,
just watch how fast she drops off their roster.

Why Kate Bush?  She makes her living this way.  Yes, she's probably very
wealthy already, but she probably can't continue to create such excellent
music if she's suddenly got to worry about keeping everyone fed without
any income from her music.

Why us (the zillions of Kate Bush fans)?  'Cause if she don't make no
money, she don't make no music.

					larry...