Re: Times article

>Subject: Re: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Times article
>From: "Tim Ivorson" <tim.ivorson-y1+26A97+I9Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
>To: free-sklyarov-uk-Sspga/[email protected]
>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1657575,00.html
>
>That's encouraging. It would've been nice if The Times had mentioned
>objections specific to retroactive copyright extension.
>
>Has anybody but The Times acknowledged Purnell's plans? I couldn't find
>anything about it on the Guardian or Telegraph websites and I haven't
>heard about it on Radio 4. Did Purnell make his announcement? Perhaps it's
>just in The Times' imagination.

blogged to a reasonable level of detail here
http://www.test.org.uk/archives/002491.html

and while we're on the subject

>From: "Bill Godfrey - LSoI Designs" <[email protected]>
>To: free-sklyarov-uk-Sspga/[email protected]

>Here's a draft. It needs improvment as i think its a bit to argumentantive.

[...]

>The small unknown film maker who wants to use "Love me do" as incidental
>music could not do so until 2063. (The current law would allow him to do
>this in 2013.)

- not sure if this is exactly the case, as - annoyingly (and as with the
recently out-of-copyright Elvis recordings) - a lot of the songs themselves
remain under copyright, as they're protected for (off the top of my head)
70 years after the author's death? 

afaik, there's not a vast amount you can legally do with an
out-of-copyright recording of a still-in-copyright song, though it does
mean there's fewer rights to clear for most re-usage (and in the case of
out-of-copyright recordings of out-of-copyright classical music, of course
you're completely in the clear...)