A lot of what Tolkien wrote [in all his files etc], was just back stories and histories which were a back drop to LOTR etc.
It's true he probably didn't want these things published, but by the same account, it wasn't because he believed it to be 'crap.'
A lot of it was written to help him put it all together in his mind, to help with the LOTR. It was a history, which he often refers to in passing that the rest of us only see glimpses of.
It's really like publishing an artists sketches which lead up to the finished painting. [For example, Michaelangelo's or Leonardo Da Vinci's sketch books.] Some of the work in it is art work in itself, but, the artist only meant for us to see the finished product. Though, looking through an artists sketch book also helps us to see how they got to their final work.
So, to hard core Tolkien fans, it's a glimpse into the working mind of the author. The fact that Christopher edits it into a more readable form, well, I think that's probably important too.
In the past many famous writers, composers and artists had thier unfinished works completed by pupils. How much of it is 'unfinished works' J.R.R. wanted to eventually release and how much is just his 'back ground', is probably a thing to debate as well. So Christopher finishing off his fathers works is nothing new in the art world.
Whether it's a grab for cash or not... well, I'll leave that for people who buy the book to debate it.:-)
I don't see why John Titor couldn't have considering Stewie Griffin did it, and Doc Brown, and The Stainless Steel Rat... and don't try to convince me that they're not real people either! [Not to mention 'The Time Traveller' from HG Well's 'The Time Machine']
We had a similar mouse problem. I caught the mouse twice and released it over in the park across the road and it came back. So once I caught our mouse again, I took him/her for a long walk to a nearby park which wasn't near any houses and released it there. Haven't seen it since.
There would be a specific phrase in the contract concerning the copyright on the recording. It would specifically be taking about the 'performance' of the 'recording', which is the copyright Sony owns.
I don't know if it would be worded in the same way as you have written it, but like I said, there is the copyright on the recording, which is owned by Sony, and a copyright on the song, which teh writers of the son owns [in this case Pearl Jam].
If a contract included a phrase which transfered the copyright of the song [which Pearl Jam owns] over to Sony, then I'd say that would be a pretty rare occurance today, as it means whenever Pearl Jam performs their own music, they have to pay Sony. In the old days it was common to have such phrases in contracts (which is why John Foggarty can't play old Credence Clearwater Revival songs), but like I said, there is a thing called 'Unfair Contract'. Many artists started fighting back, and a lot of them regained their copyrights on songs. This was because the artists were often recording the music, and never seeing any benefit. [ie the record company basically got to keep all the money etc]. So the courts sided with the artists who could prove that the contract basically was leaving them doing all the work and receiving no benefits for their works. [A lot of artists were paid to record, and as such had a harder time claiming an unfair contract, which is why not all artists have been able to reverse their copyrights, as the record companies could claim the artist did in fact understand they were signing over their copyright for X amount of dollars].
But, standard contracts now-a-days usually has all the rights of the Song staying with the artists, and the record company owning the copyright on the recording.
So, if such a phrase as what you have given us is in the contract, then it is most likely refering to the performance of the recording. Which is why playing 'Alive' in radio will mean the Radio Station owes about one cent to Sony [for performance of the recording], and about one cent to Pearl jam [for performance of the song], and that one cent will be collected by either ASCAP, BMI in the US or the relevant collection agency in each country. [In Australia, where I am, it is APRA that does the collection]. These are also the agencies you need to contact in order to get permission to perform the songs [as you don't contact the artists themselves normally].
So, if I wanted to perform 'Alive' by Pearl jam, I'd contact APRA, get a License granting permission/clearance to perform the song, and APRA collect royalties off me for everytime I play the song. [So, if I play 100 concerts I owe Pearl Jam about $1]:-) I don't owe Sony anything, as they have no copyright on the actual song.
BUT, if I was to play the SONY owned recording of the song, I'd go to APRA, get the license once again, and then I'd pay APRA who distribute the royalties to Sony and Pearl jam (and it'd cost me twice as much). Radio stations normally already contain such a license for public broadcast for all the major labels and probably most of the minor ones as well in their area.
Now-a-days, if the record company did include something in the contract effectively taking the copyright for an artists song, they'd have to prove in a court of law that the artist had 100% understanding that that was the case, else the artist could reverse the decision under 'unfair contract' claiming that they were not aware of the fact they were in effect signing over their songs copyright.
[So, a phrase similar to what you've written might be legal, or it might be unenforcable. It would get decided on an artist to artist basis. The court could go either way depending on the circumstances].
Check with a Lawyer if you have such a clause in a contract. If it's just refering to the Sound Recording, then the record company has that right, if it's refering to the actual copyright on the song, then see about getting the contract changed under the 'unfai
You should find most songwriters still own the rights to their own songs now-a-days. [Which is often the artist]. Standard contracts don't include those sorts of clauses where the artist signs their copyright over to the record company anymore. Mainly as there is a thing called an 'unfair contract' which came about, and a lot of artists recovered the rights to their songs when that came about. [Not all though, I think Michael Jackson still owns the rights to the Beatles biggest hits - which means he collects the royalties when the check is sent out... that's because he bought Northern Song, you might remember the news when he was bidding against Paul McCartney when that came up - which is why Sir Paul doesn't speak to Michael anymore].
There are two different copyrights, one is on the SONG itself. This is why the artists get royalties [dig up Sonny Bono and ask him if you don't believe me]. Whoever owns THAT copyright gets a royalty for that whenever the song is played/used/re-recorded etc.
The other is on the recording.
So, a band walks into a studio, records an album, and the record company owns the copyright on THAT recording and only on that recording. Any other recording (either previous or later) will belong to whoever has the rights on that recording. [Might be another record company, the band, some kid down the street etc] In the case of the band recording themselves live and distributing on the internet or via CD's it would be the band who owns the copyright.
The record company gets a royalty for the recording they own when it gets used, but any re-recording of the song they won't get a cent from.
So, that's why Pearl Jam can record their concerts and distribute the songs. Anyone else making a recording of the concert is doing so without permission and as such doesn't own the copyright on the bootleg they make, as they don't have the 'right' to make copies, not even the original bootleg they record. If however you were to phone Pearl Jam or some other band in advance and get written permission from them to record their concert, then you can probably take it home and own that... I believe Axle Rose was on record at one stage saying that they didn't mind their fans taking photos or making recordings of their concerts as long as it was for personal use. [But, don't take my word for that, contact Axle Rose for comfirmation first.]
'Don't you remember when the monolith told the human race to keep its fingers out of Uranus?'
Willy Wonka [latest Johnny Depp version] probably didn't help when he transmitted a chocolate bar into that movie and now the monolith has turned into brown goo... those apes will never listen to that advice now!!!!
It might not be that no one was alerted to it, it's just that they didn't inform you.
When I used to work for the Credit Unions, I was informed that any 'unusual' payment over $1000 was reported to the Government. [That meant that they ignored wages etc going into a bank account].
If the Government thought anything suspiscious might have been happening, [Like the fund came out of thin air], then they give the person a visit. Other than that, they will normally just do some checks to make sure nothing untoward was happening.
Their sales have gone through the roof SINCE they started the law Suit... so if they stop the suit in the next two weeks (either drop their suit or come to some settlement), then they've made a packet.
I don't recall anyone mentioning an increase in their sales since Dan's book came out, (doesn't mean they didn't increase, and I can't be bothered googling for it), but their book has now hit 58 on Amazon (and climbing).
Slashdot Mirror
I had a hard time squeezing the sharks into the CPU. Luckily for them it's water cooled!
A lot of what Tolkien wrote [in all his files etc], was just back stories and histories which were a back drop to LOTR etc.
... well, I'll leave that for people who buy the book to debate it. :-)
It's true he probably didn't want these things published, but by the same account, it wasn't because he believed it to be 'crap.'
A lot of it was written to help him put it all together in his mind, to help with the LOTR. It was a history, which he often refers to in passing that the rest of us only see glimpses of.
It's really like publishing an artists sketches which lead up to the finished painting. [For example, Michaelangelo's or Leonardo Da Vinci's sketch books.] Some of the work in it is art work in itself, but, the artist only meant for us to see the finished product. Though, looking through an artists sketch book also helps us to see how they got to their final work.
So, to hard core Tolkien fans, it's a glimpse into the working mind of the author. The fact that Christopher edits it into a more readable form, well, I think that's probably important too.
In the past many famous writers, composers and artists had thier unfinished works completed by pupils. How much of it is 'unfinished works' J.R.R. wanted to eventually release and how much is just his 'back ground', is probably a thing to debate as well. So Christopher finishing off his fathers works is nothing new in the art world.
Whether it's a grab for cash or not
I don't see why John Titor couldn't have considering Stewie Griffin did it, and Doc Brown, and The Stainless Steel Rat ... and don't try to convince me that they're not real people either! [Not to mention 'The Time Traveller' from HG Well's 'The Time Machine']
Why do I have this strange echo in my head ... something about the mice being furious when the earth was destroyed! Hmmmm ... :-)
If only Armstrong had taken a piece fo string with him, so we could also test string theory! :-)
Pizza delivery for *looks at receipt* I.C. Wiener?
'Never thought I'd see the day when "Ohm's Law" and "interesting" would be used in the same sentence.'
:-)
:-)
Did you ever think you'd see the day when YOU would use "Ohm's Law" and "Interesting" in the same sentence?
[I am guessing my sentences makes it the third time you've seen it happen!]
We had a similar mouse problem. I caught the mouse twice and released it over in the park across the road and it came back. So once I caught our mouse again, I took him/her for a long walk to a nearby park which wasn't near any houses and released it there. Haven't seen it since.
I fer won well kom ow-er fonetic over lords
I did that on LB-4-26, and one of those pesky mines still snuck aboard the ship!
I hate self deprecation. It always seems to be directed at me! :-)
:-)
Geees, I think I just found my new SIG!
So, two and a half hours of music! That's going to keep some Indian composer busy for a long time! :-)
There would be a specific phrase in the contract concerning the copyright on the recording. It would specifically be taking about the 'performance' of the 'recording', which is the copyright Sony owns.
:-) I don't owe Sony anything, as they have no copyright on the actual song.
I don't know if it would be worded in the same way as you have written it, but like I said, there is the copyright on the recording, which is owned by Sony, and a copyright on the song, which teh writers of the son owns [in this case Pearl Jam].
If a contract included a phrase which transfered the copyright of the song [which Pearl Jam owns] over to Sony, then I'd say that would be a pretty rare occurance today, as it means whenever Pearl Jam performs their own music, they have to pay Sony. In the old days it was common to have such phrases in contracts (which is why John Foggarty can't play old Credence Clearwater Revival songs), but like I said, there is a thing called 'Unfair Contract'. Many artists started fighting back, and a lot of them regained their copyrights on songs. This was because the artists were often recording the music, and never seeing any benefit. [ie the record company basically got to keep all the money etc]. So the courts sided with the artists who could prove that the contract basically was leaving them doing all the work and receiving no benefits for their works. [A lot of artists were paid to record, and as such had a harder time claiming an unfair contract, which is why not all artists have been able to reverse their copyrights, as the record companies could claim the artist did in fact understand they were signing over their copyright for X amount of dollars].
But, standard contracts now-a-days usually has all the rights of the Song staying with the artists, and the record company owning the copyright on the recording.
So, if such a phrase as what you have given us is in the contract, then it is most likely refering to the performance of the recording. Which is why playing 'Alive' in radio will mean the Radio Station owes about one cent to Sony [for performance of the recording], and about one cent to Pearl jam [for performance of the song], and that one cent will be collected by either ASCAP, BMI in the US or the relevant collection agency in each country. [In Australia, where I am, it is APRA that does the collection]. These are also the agencies you need to contact in order to get permission to perform the songs [as you don't contact the artists themselves normally].
So, if I wanted to perform 'Alive' by Pearl jam, I'd contact APRA, get a License granting permission/clearance to perform the song, and APRA collect royalties off me for everytime I play the song. [So, if I play 100 concerts I owe Pearl Jam about $1]
BUT, if I was to play the SONY owned recording of the song, I'd go to APRA, get the license once again, and then I'd pay APRA who distribute the royalties to Sony and Pearl jam (and it'd cost me twice as much). Radio stations normally already contain such a license for public broadcast for all the major labels and probably most of the minor ones as well in their area.
Now-a-days, if the record company did include something in the contract effectively taking the copyright for an artists song, they'd have to prove in a court of law that the artist had 100% understanding that that was the case, else the artist could reverse the decision under 'unfair contract' claiming that they were not aware of the fact they were in effect signing over their songs copyright.
[So, a phrase similar to what you've written might be legal, or it might be unenforcable. It would get decided on an artist to artist basis. The court could go either way depending on the circumstances].
Check with a Lawyer if you have such a clause in a contract. If it's just refering to the Sound Recording, then the record company has that right, if it's refering to the actual copyright on the song, then see about getting the contract changed under the 'unfai
You should find most songwriters still own the rights to their own songs now-a-days. [Which is often the artist]. Standard contracts don't include those sorts of clauses where the artist signs their copyright over to the record company anymore. Mainly as there is a thing called an 'unfair contract' which came about, and a lot of artists recovered the rights to their songs when that came about. [Not all though, I think Michael Jackson still owns the rights to the Beatles biggest hits - which means he collects the royalties when the check is sent out ... that's because he bought Northern Song, you might remember the news when he was bidding against Paul McCartney when that came up - which is why Sir Paul doesn't speak to Michael anymore].
... I believe Axle Rose was on record at one stage saying that they didn't mind their fans taking photos or making recordings of their concerts as long as it was for personal use. [But, don't take my word for that, contact Axle Rose for comfirmation first.]
:-)
There are two different copyrights, one is on the SONG itself. This is why the artists get royalties [dig up Sonny Bono and ask him if you don't believe me]. Whoever owns THAT copyright gets a royalty for that whenever the song is played/used/re-recorded etc.
The other is on the recording.
So, a band walks into a studio, records an album, and the record company owns the copyright on THAT recording and only on that recording. Any other recording (either previous or later) will belong to whoever has the rights on that recording. [Might be another record company, the band, some kid down the street etc] In the case of the band recording themselves live and distributing on the internet or via CD's it would be the band who owns the copyright.
The record company gets a royalty for the recording they own when it gets used, but any re-recording of the song they won't get a cent from.
So, that's why Pearl Jam can record their concerts and distribute the songs. Anyone else making a recording of the concert is doing so without permission and as such doesn't own the copyright on the bootleg they make, as they don't have the 'right' to make copies, not even the original bootleg they record. If however you were to phone Pearl Jam or some other band in advance and get written permission from them to record their concert, then you can probably take it home and own that
Hope that clears it up for you.
'ignored curses inscribed on the tombs of Egyptian pharaohs to seize the riches inside. The curse of plutonium packs a painful penalty.'
... I think he was Pharoah in the late old Kingdom wasn't he? :-)
Plutonium
Let's dig him up and see if he was as rich as they say he was!!!!
'Plot Outline: A mans awakens to find himself alone in the world.'
Happens to me every morning!
'Don't you remember when the monolith told the human race to keep its fingers out of Uranus?'
... those apes will never listen to that advice now!!!!
Willy Wonka [latest Johnny Depp version] probably didn't help when he transmitted a chocolate bar into that movie and now the monolith has turned into brown goo
As a CEO I agree.
I have heaps of cockroaches working for me, and not one of them is incompetent enough to get promoted into management positions!!!!
'I'd get a cyborg monkey.'
:-)
So, you think you are management material!
Smithers, release the winged monkeys!
They could have at least classified it as a Zoidberg!
It might not be that no one was alerted to it, it's just that they didn't inform you.
When I used to work for the Credit Unions, I was informed that any 'unusual' payment over $1000 was reported to the Government.
[That meant that they ignored wages etc going into a bank account].
If the Government thought anything suspiscious might have been happening, [Like the fund came out of thin air], then they give the person a visit. Other than that, they will normally just do some checks to make sure nothing untoward was happening.
I for one welcome our free power, grave spinning overloards.
Their sales have gone through the roof SINCE they started the law Suit ... so if they stop the suit in the next two weeks (either drop their suit or come to some settlement), then they've made a packet.
I don't recall anyone mentioning an increase in their sales since Dan's book came out, (doesn't mean they didn't increase, and I can't be bothered googling for it), but their book has now hit 58 on Amazon (and climbing).
Wait, there is some more space dust.
"How to serve Forty humans!"
I'm pretty sure there are more female hookers servicing cheating men than there are giggilos servicing cheating wives.
Not everyone who cheats, cheats with one other person only.