Mcleod

After reading this piece, I am very disappointed and very confused by all this copyright mumbo-jumbo. Basically, they're saying that practically everything is copyrighted and being stolen. How many songs on the radio today make you think of another song, or have the same melody or even parts from other songs. It's practically impossible to be 100% original anymore. It's almost like some people are just trying to make sure they get a paycheck and to sue somebody for "stealing" their work. There are only so many words in the English language and only so many ways to arrange them that obviously there's going to be some type of infringement somewhere.

Also, it brought up the thought that maybe by me making my own mix CD is a type of infringement because I'm ruining the musical integrity! I think this is completely bogus. Once I buy the music, I should be allowed to play with it how I want to. If they don't want me to rearrange music in my library, don't make it so I can rip it from the CD, put it on my computer and then create a new CD with whatever songs I want on it! Ship me away if you want, but I like my mixes.

It's also really ridiculous that they're charging Girl Scout camps for loyalties to sing songs. Do I need to pay Times New Warner to sing Happy Birthday to my family members and friends every time I sing it? Are they going to sue basically all of America for taking it from them? I don't think so. It's just ridiculous. If people don't want their stuff being used, don't get it made popular and don't make such a big deal out of it, they should be happy that people are appreciating the genius of their "creation" or "invention."

In a more up to date idea of how people are always remixing music would be the new version of Forever Young and the old one? What sort of obstacles did both parties have to go through to make the song possible? Was it really even a big issue? Is congress going to get it's nose buried in an issue that perhaps both artists agreed upon in the first place just because it wasn't in the public domain? Also, what is it with extending copyrights for things. If your copyright expires, it should expire. It makes me think of Mickey Mouse and how his copyright has been extended forever and then I think about those tacky Wal-Mart sweaters and T-shirts with Mickey on them and every single picture online. Why aren't they getting all mad about that and suing left and right?! If they want the money so bad, start suing them for every penny they've got, if not, let it be and let others enjoy Mickey!!

The article also points out how reworking is a very important thing for our culture. It helped to create new works such as the musical Les Miserable, and West Side Story. This just reminded me of how earlier in the article a composer was reprimanded for putting Happy Birthday in one of his compositions! That's just plain ridiculous and completely unnecessary. It really makes me angry to be honest. It kind of makes sense to me now why radio stations have to make up their own little birthday jingles to acknowledge people's birthdays, they don't want to pay loyalties on a song they thought they had the freedom to sing and use.

Then, they touched on Disney. Why aren't they being used for remixing old fairytales and fables. It's the same concept. Why doesn't anybody want to protect those old stories by Hans Christian Andersen and the Grimm Brothers? Is their work not cool enough to be covered by these laws? But, I suppose I'm probably just getting really worked up about how ridiculous all of this is. I guess I just don't fully understand the extent to which some of these copyrights go, and I don't really know if I want to know!