My Profile

Keep Up to Date:
Blog RSS
Blog
Forum RSS
Forum
Post New Topic Post Reply
Posted 4 Months ago
johnfoo
Expert Boarder
Posts: 128
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Shouldn't think so.

Dolores

<Too busy trying to finish this project up
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
paulstar
Expert Boarder
Posts: 113
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Yeah, I got a quick answer for ya. Google yourself.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
wordshop
Expert Boarder
Posts: 112
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Cowritten by Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul & Mary - was this Lenny the other author? It was a big hit for PPM. It's not likely to be in the public domain.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
trampamlm
Expert Boarder
Posts: 109
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Yes, PPM shared writing credits
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
Vgtrzubx
Expert Boarder
Posts: 118
graphgraph
User Offline
 
If the work was created and published before 1978, which this one was, and if a copyright renewal of the first 28 year term was properly requested, as this one no doubt was, then it will not be public domain till 95 years since the original copyright have passed.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
VertinMon
Expert Boarder
Posts: 120
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Because of course Lenny Lipton's children should never have to work a day in their lives. I mean, come on - their dad wrote a silly metaphor for smoking weed. See how that makes sense?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
Bhaumik Shukla
Expert Boarder
Posts: 111
graphgraph
User Offline
 
The recordings may go PD after 70 years (in US) but the song will remain copyright for at least 50 (or is it 70?) years after the death of the last of the writers to die.

Phil
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
misha23
Expert Boarder
Posts: 126
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Unless given permission by the copyright holders, I think that's a definite keep your hands off Puff
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
Tijbuktur
Expert Boarder
Posts: 100
graphgraph
User Offline
 
But a lot of people bought that 'silly' song'.

A bit more respect for the songwriter wouldn't come amiss. And if the song gathers more royalties after the writers have 'moved on' ,who is more entitled to the money than the children of the writers?

CEO's?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
heavyhauler
Expert Boarder
Posts: 123
graphgraph
User Offline
 
And a lot of people bought stock in pets.com. And Minidisc players, and tickets to Joel Schumacher movies. A lot of people buy a lot of things...

Of course, songs don't 'gather' royalties on their own. Royalties are charged. And while I don't believe anyone is entitled to royalties to begin with, I *especially* don't believe anyone is entitled to royalties for songs they didn't even write.

'Puff the Magic Dragon', as much as I don't care for the song, became a significant part of American culture long ago - take, for example, the exchange about the song in 'Meet the Parents'. It's a cultural reference point, and says a lot about the era it was written in.

I get so utterly frustrated when Congress and corporations conspire to sell our culture back to us. No one should be prevented from listening to that song until they pay up. It's wrong.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 4 Months ago
LimShady
Expert Boarder
Posts: 98
graphgraph
User Offline
 
I don't agree with you.

I am perfectly entitled to disagree with you.

You are not entitled to take someone else's property without permission.

Over and out on that...again.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Nov 2008 My Chord Space