Songwriting Rights vs. Recording Rights and the case of Grey Tuesday
Before you believe that you're sticking up for neglected songwriters when you side with the recording industry in downloading controversies, remember this: once a song is recorded, you have the right to cover that song in your own recording without permission, so long as you pay songwriter royalties. You could only be sued if you were believed to have damaged the song somehow by your version. The songwriter has no right of refusal.

Recordings are controlled by record companies and play by very different rules. You can't use recordings for anything without getting taken to the cleaners by the corporate interests that rule the music industry. Their head-spins over Internet file-sharing is not about letting creative people retain ownership of their intellectual property, though they would love to keep that protect-the-artist myth alive. It's about ensuring corporate ownership over product.

One problem (of many) that arises from this vise-grip over recording rights comes to the fore thanks to technological advances that allow recordings to be plied and manipulated by creative composers. Call it parody; call it commentary, call it expression, it is anything but stealing. Which brings me to Grey Tuesday, a day of online civil disobedience in which hundreds of websites made available for download the controversial "Grey Album," a mix of Jay Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album that has caused EMI (owners of Beatles recording rights) to fall all over itself trying to stifle its distribution.

Grey Tuesday had many online tributes, but for a fabulous consideration, read Professor Lawrence Lessig's post. I'm no expert on the legal matters, but this is fabulous music, intensely alive and contemporary {Darn, I just realized I used the word "fabulous" in 2 consecutive sentences in this post. I suck!} I believe it is protected by the constitution. It would be nice if more officers of the court would defend this sort of thing as such. One of Lessig's points suggests that even if all 4 Beatles were to agree to endorse such a use of their creations, it would not matter. They do not hold the power to release their work in that way. So whose interests are being protected?