[lbo-talk] plagiarism watch REALITY CHECK

[J Cullen]

I'm a little late to the plagiarism party, but for the record, Pat 
Boone did not steal Little Richard's songs.  Like many black artists 
in the 1950s, Richard may have gotten ripped off by his label, but 
once he put out his version of "Tutti Frutti" and "Long Tall Sally," 
they were fair game for Boone and other performers to record -- as 
long as royalties were paid.  If Richard never got a nickel from Pat 
Boone, it probably was because the royalties had been signed away to 
Richards' label or manager.

In 1831, Congress extended copyright to the printed sale of music and 
in 1897 it created performance rights, which included the right to 
license performance.  In 1909 it allowed "compulsory licenses," so 
that after a composer allowed someone to record a song, anybody else 
could record the song for fee, which was initially set at 2 cents per 
song, increased to 8 cents in 2002.  In 1972, in reaction to tape 
piracy, Congress made sound recordings eligible for copyright. See 
"Economic Justice: Copyright Owners, Performers and Users" by Edward 
Samuels, from a paper presented at New York Law School. 
http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/economicjustice.htm. 
(It's a section of his book, "The Illustrated History of Copyright," 
available online for free at 
http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/index.html.)

-- Jim Cullen


>  > Intellectual property is theft.
>>
>>  Chuck
>
>Tell that to Little Richard, who never got a nickel from Pat Boone, who
>stole his songs outright before copyright was extended to music.
>
>If it's created by the labor of its owner, property is not theft.
>