Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70556 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-26 19:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-09-27 13:12 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 121 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 19:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-09-26 19:58 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 20:30 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-27 09:39 +0100
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-09-28 08:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-26 19:10 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 21:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 21:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:20 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 16:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-28 15:45 +0000
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-28 16:30 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-28 17:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 22:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 16:40 +0100
OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 16:58 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 18:19 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 20:57 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-09-29 20:00 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) André Coutanche <acoutanche@gmx.co.uk> - 2026-09-29 21:50 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 22:33 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 22:48 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 01:07 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-30 15:51 -0700
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 10:57 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-30 08:10 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 01:39 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-30 00:46 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 22:39 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-30 12:25 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 13:34 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:31 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-30 14:47 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 14:58 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:36 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 11:12 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:35 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 16:14 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 17:35 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-01 17:53 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 19:03 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 21:50 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:25 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:13 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 11:51 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 14:55 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-09-30 14:15 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-27 19:58 +1000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-27 22:13 +1000
[OT] - audio distribution, Rediffusion-style (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 16:43 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-27 11:44 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-27 16:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-27 18:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-27 18:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-28 15:56 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-28 16:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-28 17:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-29 12:01 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 13:05 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-29 13:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Other John <nomail@here.org> - 2026-09-29 16:53 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 10:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 13:36 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:23 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:37 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:28 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:35 +0200
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:15 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:24 +0200
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-01 17:17 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 13:10 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 13:42 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 13:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-03 21:10 +1000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:39 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 12:47 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 12:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:09 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 15:59 +0100
Re: OT - TV Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-09-30 15:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-29 13:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:27 +0200
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 11:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 11:19 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 13:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 13:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 18:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 06:37 +0000
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 10:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 09:41 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:37 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-30 13:08 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:50 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 06:12 +0000
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 03:29 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:53 +0200
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-01 03:32 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:49 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 13:27 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:19 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:34 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-02 06:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-27 13:12 +0200
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 22:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119haqm$3m2fb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70610 |
On 29/09/2026 21:50, André Coutanche wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 19:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Still, nobody could torture a rhyme like Tom Lehrer: >> >> These are the only ones of which the news has come to Hah-vahd. >> And there may be many others but they haven't been discah-vahd. > > "We'll try to stay serene and calm > When Alabama gets the bomb" > > Works perfectly in American. And the split line-ends: Getting ecstatic And sorta dramatic And doing the Vatic- an Rag I like "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun Pollution, pollution Wear a gasmask and a veil Then you can breathe 'Long as you don't inhale The big question, of course, is what naughty line people imagine for his self-censored one in My Home Town (which he never actually wrote - it was intentionally blank). His piss-take of Gilbert and Sullivan is spot on: Now a pestering sister's A festering blister You'd better resist her, say I. When she said I could have her Her sister's cadaver Must surely have turned in its crypt!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 22:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <dfXuS.524$cKfa.94@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #70611 |
On 2026-09-29, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 29/09/2026 21:50, André Coutanche wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 19:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> Still, nobody could torture a rhyme like Tom Lehrer:
>>>
>>> These are the only ones of which the news has come to Hah-vahd.
>>> And there may be many others but they haven't been discah-vahd.
>>
>> "We'll try to stay serene and calm
>> When Alabama gets the bomb"
>>
>> Works perfectly in American.
> And the split line-ends:
>
> Getting ecstatic
> And sorta dramatic
> And doing the Vatic-
> an Rag
My favourite split is:
And you may have thought it tragic,
Not to mention other adjec-
tives, to think of all the weeping they will do.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people:
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 01:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119hjrv$3p844$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70613 |
On 2026/9/29 23:48:41, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-09-29, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> On 29/09/2026 21:50, André Coutanche wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 19:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Still, nobody could torture a rhyme like Tom Lehrer: >>>> >>>> These are the only ones of which the news has come to Hah-vahd. >>>> And there may be many others but they haven't been discah-vahd. >>> >>> "We'll try to stay serene and calm >>> When Alabama gets the bomb" >>> >>> Works perfectly in American. >> And the split line-ends: >> >> Getting ecstatic >> And sorta dramatic >> And doing the Vatic- >> an Rag > > My favourite split is: > > And you may have thought it tragic, > Not to mention other adjec- > tives, to think of all the weeping they will do. > Which comes /straight/ after When you attend a funeral it is sad to think that sooner or l- ater those you love will do the same for you ! Two prime Lehrer splits in one verse! World population has risen considerably since he wrote that (he said 3 billion). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A lert ness should precede a round tuit. - "Sn!pe" in eternal-september.test, 2026-5-27
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 15:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <20260930155134.00005cef@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #70614 |
"National Brotherhood Week" is also a classic: It's fun to eulogize/ The people you despise/ As long as you don't let them in your schools... It's only for a week, so have no fear/ Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 10:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119lar2$12c6o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70647 |
On 30/09/2026 23:51, John Ames wrote: > "National Brotherhood Week" is also a classic: > > It's fun to eulogize/ > The people you despise/ > As long as you don't let them in your schools... > > It's only for a week, so have no fear/ > Be grateful that it doesn't last all year! I like National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week It's National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Another-Hood Week Be nice to people who are inferior to you It's only for a week so have no fear Be grateful that it doesn't last all year I love the way he manges to get a sneer into "inferior" ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 08:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119icm2$dhr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70613 |
On 29/09/2026 23:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-09-29, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> On 29/09/2026 21:50, André Coutanche wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 19:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Still, nobody could torture a rhyme like Tom Lehrer: >>>> >>>> These are the only ones of which the news has come to Hah-vahd. >>>> And there may be many others but they haven't been discah-vahd. >>> >>> "We'll try to stay serene and calm >>> When Alabama gets the bomb" >>> >>> Works perfectly in American. >> And the split line-ends: >> >> Getting ecstatic >> And sorta dramatic >> And doing the Vatic- >> an Rag > > My favourite split is: > > And you may have thought it tragic, > Not to mention other adjec- > tives, to think of all the weeping they will do. That's the other one I was trying to think of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 01:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119hlod$3pq0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70611 |
On 2026/9/29 22:33:10, NY wrote: [] > Getting ecstatic > And sorta dramatic > And doing the Vatic- > an Rag [] There the guy who's got religion'll tell you if your sin's original Clearly, there are a group of us here of just the right age to have experienced him at the age that things are memorized (even if we dpm#t want them to be)! I hope we're encouraging some new fans to look him out though.-- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A lert ness should precede a round tuit. - "Sn!pe" in eternal-september.test, 2026-5-27
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 00:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <20260929204151@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #70615 |
On 2026-09-30, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > There the guy who's got religion'll > tell you if your sin's original Some have harsh words for this man of renown But some think our attitude Should be one of gratitude Like the widows and cripples in old London town Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 22:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119hb6g$3m616$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70603 |
On 29/09/2026 16:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > Have you come across the orchestrated version? IMO beautifully done (I > don't know by whom - probably himself): > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsMLDzlAm_A . > Nice story about that which I _hope_ is true - the orchestral sheet > music parts had been handed out, but _without_ the title; little > mutterings from the orchestra of "what a charming little waltz" (which > it is) - then the producer tapped and said "OK - Poisoning Pigeons in > the Park, take one", to a general dropping of jaws. The description of this that I read said that the pianist fell off his piano stool with shock and/or laughter. > Did you know he'd _specifically_ made his works - including recordings - > public domain? Nice man. Yes, a very public-spirited thing to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 12:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119j63i.9b0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70603 |
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: [About Tom Lehrer:] > Did you know he'd _specifically_ made his works - including recordings - > public domain? Nice man. Not that it matters, but according to international law (the Bern Convention), you can't actually do that (declare your work to be public domain). Whatever you do, you still have (misnomer:) copyright, or better, author's rights. But you *can* declare your works to be freely copyable, modifyable, <whatever>, which effectively amounts to - but is not - the same as 'public domain'. (In some juridictions you have to be dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in other juridiction, even that doesn't 'help'.) As an example, I have the 'copyright'/authors rights to this post, but of course I implicitly give permission to copy it, but I do *not* lose my author's right to be properly attributed when quoted, i.e. quoting without attribution is not permitted (and yes, we have threathened with legal action against a person who intentionally violated that author's right over and over). [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 13:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119ivkf$7ato$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70628 |
On 2026/9/30 13:25:3, Frank Slootweg wrote: > J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > > [About Tom Lehrer:] > >> Did you know he'd _specifically_ made his works - including recordings - >> public domain? Nice man. > > Not that it matters, but according to international law (the Bern > Convention), you can't actually do that (declare your work to be public > domain). Whatever you do, you still have (misnomer:) copyright, or > better, author's rights. But you *can* declare your works to be freely > copyable, modifyable, <whatever>, which effectively amounts to - but is > not - the same as 'public domain'. (In some juridictions you have to be > dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in > other juridiction, even that doesn't 'help'.) Interesting! But whatever the precise details of the case, TL made it clear that anyone could copy, distribute, etc. whatever they liked of his works, with no comeback from him or anyone else.> > As an example, I have the 'copyright'/authors rights to this post, but > of course I implicitly give permission to copy it, but I do *not* lose > my author's right to be properly attributed when quoted, i.e. quoting > without attribution is not permitted (and yes, we have threathened with > legal action against a person who intentionally violated that author's > right over and over). > > [...] Good example. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times, 3-9 July 2010
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 14:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119j2vc$8pgq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70628 |
On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: > In some juridictions you have to be > dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in > other juridiction, So no copyright on classical music anymore -- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H.L.Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 14:47 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119j3ta$9bpe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70635 |
On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> In some juridictions you have to be >> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >> other juridiction, > > So no copyright on classical music anymore I've always wondered why copyright is deemed to expire some period (eg 70 years) after the *death* of the author, rather than dating from the creation/publication of the work when copyright (and now, author's rights) is first asserted. It means that works created when the author was young earn far more royalties and are protected for a lot longer than those created near the end of his life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 14:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <ni4isaFfvdfU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70637 |
On 30/09/2026 14:47, NY wrote: > On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> In some juridictions you have to be >>> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >>> other juridiction, >> >> So no copyright on classical music anymore > > > I've always wondered why copyright is deemed to expire some period (eg > 70 years) after the *death* of the author, rather than dating from the > creation/publication of the work when copyright (and now, author's > rights) is first asserted. It means that works created when the author > was young earn far more royalties and are protected for a lot longer > than those created near the end of his life. The official reason is to provide an income for any surviving family members. -- Tciao for Now! John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 02:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119kdf6$oq6h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70639 |
On 2026/9/30 14:58:33, John Williamson wrote: > On 30/09/2026 14:47, NY wrote: >> On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>>> In some juridictions you have to be >>>> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >>>> other juridiction, >>> >>> So no copyright on classical music anymore >> No (for long-dead composers, anyway - there are composers well into the 20th century - and still alive, for that matter - who many [including some of them themselves] would classify as "classical"). That's the actual music; any recorded _performance_ thereof has copyright, as arguably does any printing of the scores, if rearranged for tidiness (and some would claim even of the original scores if the scanning/cleanup involved significant effort). Copyright is a complicated business, and lots of people try to claim it one way or another! (I'm a hobby genealogist; lots of even ancient [relatively] documents are _claimed_ by assorted bodies. I think in practice nobody will come down on anyone doing their own genealogy, or for a friend or even about a famous person, _unless_ they start publishing the images in a book they actually sell.) >> >> I've always wondered why copyright is deemed to expire some period (eg >> 70 years) after the *death* of the author, rather than dating from the >> creation/publication of the work when copyright (and now, author's >> rights) is first asserted. It means that works created when the author >> was young earn far more royalties and are protected for a lot longer >> than those created near the end of his life. > Me too.> > The official reason is to provide an income for any surviving family > members. > But surely they've benefited from the earlier works already, and/or could benefit from the later ones; I agree with NY, it seems illogical to go from the death rather than the creation. > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said the Borg, "we assimilated a Pooh."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 11:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119lbmt$12o2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70650 |
On 01/10/2026 02:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2026/9/30 14:58:33, John Williamson wrote: >> The official reason is to provide an income for any surviving family >> members. >> > But surely they've benefited from the earlier works already, and/or > could benefit from the later ones; I agree with NY, it seems illogical > to go from the death rather than the creation. Precisely. You'd think that the fairest approach would be for every work to be in copyright for the same length of time, during which time sales generate royalties, rather than works produced earlier in life to be in copyright for longer. The other change I'd like to see to copyright laws is that they lapse if supplies of the work cease because it has gone out of print: ie they exist to protect sales, and if there are no sales, there is no copyright to protect and generate royalties from those sales. That is very different from "moral right to be identified as author" which should last forever. It would end the "dog-in-a-manger" situation where a book goes out of print and the copyright holder does not want to make any more copies, but no-one else is allowed to make copies of it to satisfy any demand, even if those copies generate royalties to the copyright holder. At least Crown Copyright on OS maps only lasts 50 years so National Library of Scotland can publish and maps from 1976 or earlier, which is virtually "yesterday" to my brain ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 14:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119m24d.14r4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70659 |
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On 01/10/2026 02:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > > On 2026/9/30 14:58:33, John Williamson wrote: > >> The official reason is to provide an income for any surviving family > >> members. > >> > > But surely they've benefited from the earlier works already, and/or > > could benefit from the later ones; I agree with NY, it seems illogical > > to go from the death rather than the creation. > > Precisely. You'd think that the fairest approach would be for every work > to be in copyright for the same length of time, during which time sales > generate royalties, rather than works produced earlier in life to be in > copyright for longer. A lot of problems/confusion are/is caused by the misnomer 'copyright'. It's *not* just about (not) making copies. That's why most countries - and I believe the Bern Convention documents - use the term 'author's rights'. It's not just about royalties, and sometimes/often - see my earlier example of our author's rights to our posts, not about royalties at all. It's not about what 'you' (any 'you') - i.e. a (potential) user of a work - think is fair, but what are the rights and wishes of the *author*. > The other change I'd like to see to copyright laws is that they lapse if > supplies of the work cease because it has gone out of print: ie they > exist to protect sales, and if there are no sales, there is no copyright > to protect and generate royalties from those sales. That is very > different from "moral right to be identified as author" which should > last forever. It would end the "dog-in-a-manger" situation where a book > goes out of print and the copyright holder does not want to make any > more copies, but no-one else is allowed to make copies of it to satisfy > any demand, even if those copies generate royalties to the copyright holder. See above. You may *want* to have a copy, but if the author or hir heirs does/do not want to provide more copies, then tough: Hir/their rights, your wish. > At least Crown Copyright on OS maps only lasts 50 years so National > Library of Scotland can publish and maps from 1976 or earlier, which is > virtually "yesterday" to my brain ;-) This is probably a different situation because there probably is not a single 'author' and the author's rights probably lie with an organization, instead of with a person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 16:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119ltcp$19tm8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70674 |
On 01/10/2026 15:35, Frank Slootweg wrote: > It's not about what 'you' (any 'you') - i.e. a (potential) user of > a work - think is fair, but what are the rights and wishes of the > *author*. I see copyright as an exchange: the author publishes the work - irrevocably so it can never be "unpublished" in the future - and in exchange for that, they receive a period of royalties from any sales of the work. But as soon as it goes out of print, all bets are off - unless or until they print new copies. In other words, it is "sales protection". That's how I think "copyright" *should* work. I realise that it doesn't work like that. Separately they gain the perpetual moral right to be identified as the author of the work, such that they (or their descendents) can sue anyone for plagiarising their work and passing it off as their own. And that doesn't stop when copyright runs out. Which brings us back to Tom Lehrer: Plagiarise. Let no-one else's work evade you eyes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 17:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119mcha.6qo.1@tardis2.eternal.september.org> |
| In reply to | #70677 |
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On 01/10/2026 15:35, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > It's not about what 'you' (any 'you') - i.e. a (potential) user of > > a work - think is fair, but what are the rights and wishes of the > > *author*. > > I see copyright as an exchange: the author publishes the work - > irrevocably so it can never be "unpublished" in the future - and in > exchange for that, they receive a period of royalties from any sales of > the work. But as soon as it goes out of print, all bets are off - unless > or until they print new copies. In other words, it is "sales protection". > > That's how I think "copyright" *should* work. I realise that it doesn't > work like that. What do you mean by "all bets are off"? (When it goes out of print) It becomes free-to-copy? Other? Also consider the eBook situation: That never "goes out of print", but it can equally become unavaible for purchase/download. And what about music? If it's 'author' stops performing, does the music become free-to-copy/use? > Separately they gain the perpetual moral right to be identified as the > author of the work, such that they (or their descendents) can sue anyone > for plagiarising their work and passing it off as their own. And that > doesn't stop when copyright runs out. Agreed. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 17:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <b6xvS.18$V6F6.5@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #70677 |
On 2026-10-01, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 01/10/2026 15:35, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> It's not about what 'you' (any 'you') - i.e. a (potential) user of
>> a work - think is fair, but what are the rights and wishes of the
>> *author*.
>
> I see copyright as an exchange: the author publishes the work -
> irrevocably so it can never be "unpublished" in the future - and in
> exchange for that, they receive a period of royalties from any sales of
> the work. But as soon as it goes out of print, all bets are off - unless
> or until they print new copies. In other words, it is "sales protection".
>
> That's how I think "copyright" *should* work. I realise that it doesn't
> work like that.
>
> Separately they gain the perpetual moral right to be identified as the
> author of the work, such that they (or their descendents) can sue anyone
> for plagiarising their work and passing it off as their own. And that
> doesn't stop when copyright runs out.
>
> Which brings us back to Tom Lehrer:
>
> Plagiarise.
> Let no-one else's work evade you eyes.
Oh, come on, let's have the whole thing:
Plagiarize!
Let no one else's work evade your eyes.
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
(But remember to always call it please "research")
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people:
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast
csiph-web