“On the other hand, shouldn't some instances of playing songs that have become part of our common language be part of the fair use laws?”


“Gone With The Wind” is certainly a part of our 'common language', is it not? Who hasn't seen it? By your logic, a theater owner should be allowed to run GWTW to packed houses and not pay any royalties, right? And make DVD's of the film and sell them, royalty-free? After all, everyone involved in making the film is dead, right?


Why stop there? Our 'common language' includes a myriad of works; literary, musical, theatrical. Do these works lose their value once they become part of the 'common language'? Why should Yoko Ono receive royalties for Lennon's work? After all, she didn't write it, and he's been dead for 34 years.


Without the songwriter, there would be no music business, period.

Songwriters profit from the recording and performance of their work, and compared to the cut the record companies, performers, lawyers, publishers, retail outlets, et. al. make on a song, the writer makes a pittance.


“So I guess my opinion is the copyright laws need to be re-written but not by the publishing industry.”


The original copyright law was actually signed into law on May 31, 1790, when it was signed by President Washington. Granted, Edison wouldn't invent the phonograph until 1877, but even the first Congress recognized the fairness in protecting intellectual property. Musical compositions would not be protected until the Copyright Act of 1909.

Citation:
http://digital-law-online.info/patry/patry5.html

Dyslectics Untie!


https://90dbband.bandcamp.com/

https://soundcloud.com/90-db

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm_3mpivKYV7T7XFJmXL-GA