Copyright (was: You have a postcard)

[John A Swartz]

Dislaimer reads:

"(Copyright Laws: If any of the artists who own the lyrics in these
postcards object to them being used in this manner, please email me and
I will take them off my site)"


O.K., at the risk of sounding somewhat prudish, I have to say that I don't
think this cuts it at all.  This site appears to be in clear violation of
copyright law.  The disclaimer basically says that they know what they
are doing may be objectionable, but if the "artist" (who is not necessarily
the copyright holder, and in the case of BOC's music, they probably are
not) objects (assuming of course the "artist" finds out about the existence
of this site), they will stop breaking the law once the artists asks to.
Gee, did you think to get the artist/copyright holder's permission BEFORE
you did this?  Is it o.k. to break the law as long as you don't get
caught?

Sorry to rain on the parade, and I'm not a particularly big fan of the way
various copyright type laws are written (which, IMHO, are designed not
to protect the artists, but to protect the record companies), but I feel
that first off people who do this sort of thing (either publishing lyrics
without credit, or recording or in some way re-creating an artist's work
without their credit and making it available - doesn't matter if it's free
or not, by the way) should understand that they are violating copyright
law (many folks who do this, especially when it comes to what seems innocent
enough - maintaining files with lyrics on them - don't realize that it is
illegal).  But, the disclaimer to me suggests that this person understands
that there may be a copyright violation - or at least suspects it (otherwise,
why the disclaimer?).  Yet, this person has placed the "burden of proof"
on the copyright holder (and, BTW, I don't think that this argument would
hold up in a court of law).

Look at it in light of Mike Barnicle - I'm sure many of you have heard of
him recently?  He was a Boston Globe columnist of basically lifted quotes
from George Carlin in an article he wrote for the paper, with no credit to
it's source.  Now, had Mike written a "disclaimer" saying "If George Carlin
has a problem with me using his material, and if he e-mails me about it,
well, then I won't do it anymore".  Would anyone have cut Barnicle any more
slack?  Right - he actually probably would have been blasted even worse
because it would be much clearer that he knew what he was doing (Barnicle's
defense for his actions was that he was "sloppy", and didn't realize that
the stuff given to him by a friend were actually quotes from Carlin).

The concept of this electronic postcard is kinda cool, and I'm sure many
artists wouldn't object to it (assuming they knew about it).  But, I don't
find it right to knowingly commit a crime now, and promise to stop if one
is caught (even though I knowingly drive over the speed limit all the
time -- then again, can't say I'll promise to slow down if I get a ticket).
The author of this site should check with the artists FIRST.

BTW, my guess is that if the person checks with Buck (the "artist")
regarding the use of "The Reaper", Buck's answer may be something to the
effect of "You need to check with Sony - they hold the copyright".

Sorry to rant,

John