🚀 go-pugleaf

Lee Hollaar wrote:
> Besides, who cares what my personal feelings are when I'm pointing
> out that your arguments were rejected by the court that considered
> them, or correcting a while back another Schlafly when he posted
> about works that had had their copyrights lapse being protected
> again.  The head of then RIAA herself could post those corrections,
> and they wouldn't be any less valid.

I appreciate being corrected.

Meanwhile, you refused to acknowledge what a greedy and sneaky
power play the RIAA pulled when it lobbied Congress to make music
a work-for-hire as a technical correction in an unrelated bill.
But now even the RIAA itself is fessing up. I just found this on
the RIAA site.

--- from RIAA.org ---

Recording Industry, Artists Reach Mutual Agreement on Work-For-Hire
Issue

WASHINGTON, August 8, 2000 - The Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) and representatives of the Artists Coalition, AFM, AFTRA,
AmSong, the Music Managers Forum and NARAS announced today that
agreement has been reached on a legislative recommendation to Congress
to resolve the "work made for hire" issue. 

Last November, Congress amended the Copyright Act to specifically add
sound recordings to the list of copyrighted works eligible to be
considered as "works made for hire." However, immediately thereafter,
legitimate concerns had been raised about its effect. 
http://www.riaa.org/News_Story.cfm?id=307
http://www.riaa.org/PR_Story.cfm?id=307