There is a contentious, (for them... they are among the most civil of discussion group members in all of the Virtual Body of Christ,) thread on the ins and outs of public dominion over music on the CMAA boards.
As befits a group with such varying backgrounds and areas of expertise, the discussion encompasses many points of view on these peripheral matters, (remarkable unanimity on essentials, I hasten to add, is a hallmark of these people.)
We have scholars of early music, composers, DMs of enormous skill and erudition, DMs like me just trying to get by.... we have the articulate and the creators of Word-burgers ©... the intemperate and hyperbolic and snarky and loud, and the diffident and meek....I imagine we have the well-off and the hand-to-mouth, both in terms of personal situation and of the community we serve, as well.
It's all very interesting to me, but I don't think.... I could be wrong, but I don't think I need pay too much attention to all this with an eye towards amending my ways. (I think my photo-copying and transcribing has always, since my conversion, been non-transgressive, and my pastor is zealous about non-infringement and scrupulosity regarding genuine Fair Use, as well.)
Actually, the only reason I'm making note of it, is because of reading a review of a Jack Black movie this morning.
Now bear with me.... Be Kind, Rewind is, it seems, about this very subject, who "owns" art, intellectual property rights, when changes to another's work makes it a new work and when it's just theft, and ultimately, what is best both for Man and what is best for Art.
And besides, it sounds like an hysterical premise.
(Did I ever think I would seriously consider paying to see a Jack Black comedy?
No, I see what you’re saying, true…. but I have always before me the example of Adam Sandler. Just because Actor X appears in Film Z, it does not follow that Film Z is an Actor X Movie.
I'm a Christian, I believe in redemption.)