It’s not the money that bothers me – we can afford to pay – Nor the shear cynical opportunism – God knows I would do the same.
It’s just that I think most of the value of an iconic piece of art is what we give it. The audience, not the song writers. It’s a song that belongs to the people, because the people created the value she is capitalizing.
If she gets more credit for her ideas I can’t see it as a bad thing.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=828762
Yeah, fuck Guernica.
At what precise point does the song I wrote transition into being a song that “belongs to the people?” After how many sales?
About 14 years, in an ideal world. That’s more than enough time to make as much money as you can off of it, without stifling the creative process which always takes from the old and makes the new out of it.
The only other system I support would be one where you have to pay to keep up the copyright, or keep a certain level of sales on a commercial product. Though that does give already rich people more power, which is the entire problem of capitalism in a nutshell–if everyone started out with equal money, capitalism would be a much, much better system.
As far as “the people” are concerned, people pretty much have free access to it already. I cat imagine (hey!) anyone paying for the privilege to hear said song.
At this point, the only people paying for it are movie producers and perhaps advertisers. And if that is indeed the case, it seems rather fitting for Yoko to re-up on the copyright.
“It was in fact Paul who played the Salieri to John’s Mozart.” Hmpf!! :mad:
if it means fewer performances of the song, it’s a great thing.
Please explain how stealing a work is creative. And your characterization of the “creative process” is clearly a sign that you don’t do any creative work.
If you mean recording it yourself, you’re certainly allowed to do that right now (and have ever since the song was released). BMI lists it as one of the 100 most performed songs of the 20th Century. You just have to pay, and in most venues, that’s paid for by the venue.
If you mean making changes to the lyrics, you can do that, too.
Basically, you’re saying, “I can’t come up with anything original, so I want to be able to use another artist’s work and profit from it.”
No, dummy. Stuff they like belongs to the people. Of course, as I always say, *people *are idiots.
Notice that *people *never want to take responsibility for stuff they don’t like. They only want the good half of the equation. Creators are obviously too stupid to understand this basic fact. Girls just want to have fun. I like that so I’m stealing it from Robert Hazard. It’s been more than 14 years after all.
:dubious: 
:mad: 
:smack:
The law is what it is, and I can’t fault Ono for exercising properly available rights.
There is a certain artistic irony, however, in extending the copyright on this particular song, given that it is about imagining “no possessions.”
What? Every time it gets played on the radio, in a supermarket, in a karaoke bar, in a restaurant, in an elevator, it generates royalties. I guarantee you there’s truckloads of money still rolling in from that song.
Since she should have been credited for the song from the beginning, this doesn’t really extend the copyright protection. It merely acknowledges what it should have been from day 1. It’s not like this is a loophole being exploited to extend copyright beyond its natural length (unless you feel that she doesn’t deserve credit at all).
I really like the version A Perfect Circle did. changed the meaning of the song without altering a single word in the lyrics.
Right. My main point is: Us common folk (the people), don’t have to pay to listen to the song. The only people paying for it are business folk (Or “The Establishment” man…).
Before copyright, artists were peasants who did what wealthy patrons told them to do.
Personally, I think art was better in those days, but most professional artists would disagree.
Without copyright, the radio would not play your and my favorite songs. It would play George Soros’ and the Koch brothers’ favorite songs.
Yeah, you can argue that current copyright terms are too long, or based on irrational premises, but that’s really a completely separate issue from Ono being given credit on this song. If she really was a co-author (a point on which there seems to be no informed disagreement), then she should have the same rights that the other co-author would, were he still alive.
But the estate of the late John Lenin fought it in court! … oh wait, that didn’t happen …
And Vladimir Lennon didn’t fight it, either.
As is, they play Clear Channel’s and Infinity’s favorite songs but that’s another matter.