[Dixielandjazz]

[G. William Oakley]

"Let's not forget BMI & The Library of Congress either folks, they are
equally
as onerous, all set up just to extort money from writers and composers, and
owned and operated by a select few famous "organized composers"just to rip
off
songwriters. "

I would disagree regarding the Library of Congress.  Thier function is to
issue the copyright.  They have no further interest in the work regarding
royalties.  The payment of royalty is the function of the publisher and they
can be as insidious as the licensing agencies (ASCAP, BMI, etc.).  I can
only speak to the dramatic publishing companies but I would venture that
music publising companies use the same shady tactics.  Some years back I
produced an adaptation of William Gillette's "Sherlock Homes."  It was an
adaptation written by me and I used the piece because it was in the public
domain.  Samuel French, the publishing company, had the vehicle in its
catalogue for years even after it had passed into the public domain.  Since
no one ever questioned their right to collect royalties they continued to do
so.  When I questioned their right they blustered and threatened litigation.
The threat went away when I told them to go ahead.  They knew they had no
case so they went away.  There is no accounting the amount of money they
have collected on this piece over the years.  One of the shadier things they
do is to re-copyright as revised.  All they have to do is change some small
part and then re-submit it.  Most people assume they have the copyright on
the whole piece when in reality all the revised copyright covers is the
small part they revised.
In a previous post someone mentioned Melrose Publishing changing or adding
lyrics.  I would bet this was a similar tactic to extend their copyright
period and thus continue to collect royalties.
I have been lucky in that the publishing company that handles my plays has
been scrupulously honest over the years for which I am extremely thankful.
Others have not bee so fortunate.
Best,
Bill