Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Reversal On 'Work For Hire' Legislation
FatouDust writes: "Wired News reports that the RIAA has reversed its position on copyright law. Last November, the recording industry lobby quietly slipped a passage deep into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, that classified sound recordings as work for hire -- effectively preventing copyright from reverting to the artist after 35 years. After protest from artists such as Sheryl Crow and Don Henley, and Congressional hearings in May, it looks like the RIAA is now ready to recommend to Congress that the revision be stricken from the books by the end of the year." I wonder what changed their minds.
It means a lot in principle. It means that RIAA is no longer trying to quietly steal work from their artists and is being up-front about their theft now. =\
Sure, 35 years is a long time. But, well, you DO still listen to the Beatles? It's been 35 years and money is still to be made.
--
Who is apart of the RIAA? - the major record labels. And who just got themselves sued by the states for price fixing? RIAA is doing this more out of necessity then willingness.
The RIAA knows it's going to have to do something about the artists. The whole Napster issue is opening up some closets that the record executives would rather keep closed. The recording industry may have to be dragged kicking and scraming into a new economic model that does not screw the artist, but they know it will eventually happen.
This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
I wonder how long they can go before people really start to revolt. And I don't just mean flaunting your copies of "For Whom The Bell Tolls (Live)" on Napster.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
The controversial lobbying efforts were aimed at allowing the RIAA to become a legal guardian of all musicans signed to member record labels. The resulting powers of attorney would have increased its profits by billions.
The RIAA stated in a press release that the measure "would only have been aimed at crappy boy bands. We were only trying to think of the children."
Entertainer Sheryl Crow, who had spearheaded the lobbying against the RIAA, was jubilant. "I'm jubilant," said Crow. "This means I don't have to get 'SANE' tattooed on my hand now."
Free Software Foundation Richard M. Stallman was contacted by email for comment, but only responded "Worst Post Ever."
Carousel is a lie!
I wonder what changed their minds.
Could it be, could it possibly be, that they are cringing from the public exposure they are getting by alienating their own artists? Maybe when Courtney Love got up in front of God and Everybody and told people that the recording industry was nothing but a bunch of bloodsucking scumbags and decided to dump their promotional and distribution machine in favor of her own website that they actually went shopping for some very expensive guy with a ponytail who actually had a f***ing clue?
Honestly, I don't understand it. If I were the RIAA and I'd gotten away with getting such a completely disgusting abuse of copyright law passed, I'd wave it in everyone's face and scream: "look, the American People don't care anymore! they let me do whatever I want! I can steal and plunder and pretty soon I'm gonna move on to raping and pillaging!".
But some of their big time acts must have (somehow) gotten their message across. Some mentioned in the written statement are Don Henley and Sheryl Crow. Sounds like some really big cash cows were threatening to go the way of Ms. Love and defect. I'd like more information on the "Artists' Coalition" mentioned in the article. It's yet more proof that the RIAA is not to be confused with the interests of recording artists, nor their profits.
The best part is Hillary won't even admit she lost:
RIAA insisted that nothing had changed and, in a written statement, RIAA President Hilary Rosen reiterated that position.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Grumble... I was trying to come up with a +1 Funny way of saying this, but it's not happening, so I'll just put it straight:
Does it bother anyone that the RIAA (and the MPAA and the SPA and the AARP and the NAACP and the AFL/CIO and lots of other TLA's) are rewriting the laws of this country? I thought only elected representatives could do that.
MSK
Does anyone else find it odd that music copyright ownership provisions are placed in a bill titled, "Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999?" I know, this is US Law, and has nothing to do with justice. But in a courtroom, an attorney from one side can object if the attorney from the other side is engaging in irrelevancies.
We need the same for our laws.
Of course I'm from Vermont, and our state is the direct beneficiary of this practice, too. We have a thing called "The Northeast Dairy Compact" that is designed to help keep small and family dairy farms afloat in a corporatist (Take that, Katz!) industrialist megafarm environment. The Northeast Dairy Compact always seems to get killed on its own by the big money on the other side. It only makes it through as an unrelated rider. But it keeps our green hills green and our scenery scenic.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
That's correct. Pick up a CD and check the fine print. Or watch the credits at the end of a movie (at the very end of the credits, usually).
That means Metallica does not have the right to sue Napster; they don't currently own the music they're suing over.
Wrong. Metallica somehow managed to sue their record company for the rights to their music, and won. I don't know the details, but as a result of a legal battle, Metallica in fact does own the rights to their music, and therefore can sue Napster.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
From Hilary Rosen: "We did not intend to change the law and have worked diligently to assure that the issue of work-for-hire is resolved without prejudice to anyone's position," she said in the release.
It looks like that the RIAA wanted this to slip in and maybe nobody would notice for, oh, 35 years or so. Spin control is now saying that they were just trying to clarify what was already in place, not actually change anyone's copyrights. Sure, they were just looking out for the artists, you know, with all those evil Napsterites out there and all...
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
I'm the last person to want to side with the record companies, but i gotta admit... anything that keeps George Michael from making albums can't be all bad.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Maybe I'm just cynical (all right, I'm DEFINATELY cynical), but I think this is less about the RIAA "doing the dight thing" and more about them choosing their battles.
Right now, the music industry battling on a number of different fronts: The RIAA is going after Napster, while the major record labels are once again fighting price-fixing charges. Because of all this, the Work-for-Hire clause that they quietly slipped into a piece of Satellite legislation got the attention of the media.
By backing off on this issue for the moment, they can prevent the public hearings that congress had planned which basically would have featured lots of musicians speaking out against the RIAA, right when a number of other issues were at stake. (unlike Napster, I cannot imagine ANY musician speaking out in support of the work-for-hire clause - not even mean old Lars).
However, when the Napster thing has died down and the media has gotten bored with these sorts of issues... don't be supprised if the RIAA once again gets congress to slip work-for-hire into some obscure legislation.
Story is here:0 810.html
http://abcnew s.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/napster_state00
--
Kiro
the article is here
Everyone should keep in mind that the RIAA changing it's position on the law is NOT the same thing as the law being changed! Changes in the law have to be enacted by Congress. Don't go on a CD buying spree, boycotters, until there is actually legislative action. And furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the RIAA will actually take action on its "change of heart."
I wonder what changed their minds.
They're catching major flak from the vary artists they're 'representing' and saw the handwriting on the wall: it's going to happen no matter what. So, when you see the crowd headed off in some direction, get in front of them so that you can 'lead'. That way, you can at least have some influence on the outcome. Otherwise, you'll end up with something really unpalatable. First rule of politics.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
We need the same for our laws.
We did... for a very brief period, we had the "Line Item Veto", which allowed the president to strike portions of laws, thus preventing congress from passing a bill that contained the meat of a law, while tacking on unrelated "pork barrel" projects to it that the president may not agree with.
Unfortunatley, when President Clinton used it, a lawsuit was filed by three senators claming that their constitutional authority had been usurped. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs complaint was upheld, and line item veto was declared unconstitutional.
So, it looks like the only way to get the Line Item Veto would be to have a constitutional amendment... and that's not very likeley right now. The last Line Item Veto amendment introduced to the house has been buried in the Judiciary subcomitee since 2/99.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
With more and more artists coming out not necessarily for Napster but decidedly against the RIAA and with the RIAA claiming in court that they are protecting the artists of the labels, one can see there is a fallacy in their argument. RIAA is realizing it is lacking allies in their widespread attacks. I kind of hope what we are seeing are death spasms, but I know that isn't the case.
Right now, the RIAA needs to be able to present a unified front of artists, even though it represents the record labels. But their lawyers know that in general the best way to get sympathy is by having the artist claim to be hurt. The one thing that seems to be genuinely true through this whole mess is each side wants to see the artist succeed. Well, then let's cut out the middleman, the record label, and let the artist do the business end. The artist can hire a marketing firm and such to get themselves known.
I believe it would reshape the industry, create more jobs, and strengthen the role of the artist in our society. It might also cure cancer, but I can't be sure of that.
Maybe, if anything good does come out of the Napster debacle, it will be the record labels and the artists come to some core agreements on compensation.
What I would really like to see is all the recording artists go on strike. But that isn't going to happen, too many artists seek fame and the joy of making the music over money.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
How many letters have you written your representatives lately? If the answer is 'none' then you have your answer as to the source of the problem. Absent input from us, of course they're going to sell out to corporations/unions/pressure groups. They give them money and/or voting blocs. Having worked for a politician in the past, I can tell you that one letter from a constituent, as long as its rational, carries a lot of weight. If you organize and get a group to write a bunch of letters, believe me, you get noticed. So, if you want to stick it to the RIAA or "The Man" in general, start writing. And better yet, gather together a group of like-minded individuals and put out a barrage. Griping on SlashDot, while possibly therapeutic, is just like flushing your opinions down the toilet.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
What's the deal with classical music then? According to this copyright law, any copyright ownership would be in the hands of long dead artists. Is it legal to trade classical music online?
Fon2d2
Life+70 isn't always shorter than the 95 years that a corp gets on a copyright. In fact, it's often quite a bit longer...
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The RIAA is looking into the idea that another media form will replace CD's. When that replacement is "complete" (meaning the labels don't make CDs anymore, so EVERYBODY must move to the new format and replace the best of their entire collection -- just like they did w/ vynal in the late 80s), then the labels will get a whole new influx of cash for "old product".
If the Doors gain ownership of their works, they can renegotiate a duplication and distribution deal that will pay substantially more.
This is what the "Majors" fear. That they will lose the cash cow of these "classic rock" releases that 1) continue to sell in current media, and 2) will likely go back to being major sellers when the media changes away from CDs.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
The labels are basically loan brokers who promote music to ensure returns. If I'm an artist, and i want to make a record, they give me noney, I make the record, then pay them back somehow.
Usually, the company also handles distribution, promotion, touring...you name it. This all costs money. So what they do is handle all the money, take what they payed for out of the artists profits plus their cut, and leave the scraps to the artist. So If they give me a $50 million dollar contract, I may still be making less than a janitor per year, while they get rich.
If the recording is a work for hire, then they need to hire and pay me to do it. They also need to hire me to perform it on tour. In this context, they would need to pay the artist a fixed, promised amount, and that's the end of it. They can't loan me money and take more than they give anymore. No more smoke and mirrors eating away at an artist's profits. Artists didn't see this oppurtunity to sue for back wages and profit, but the recording industry did and is trying to save it's ass.
In short then:
Artist: "You hired me to make a recording in exchange for $n, where's the money you promised, beotch...I'm calling my lawyer"
RIAA: "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for them meddling kids!"
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
I wonder what changed their minds.
If they didn't change their minds, then they would probably lose any sympathy they are getting from artists at this point.
The extent to which the RIAA makes things better for the artists who sign with them is the extent to which the artists will agree with them.
Turn artists into wage-slaves, and kiss your coalition good-bye.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Here's an interesting article about artists cutting the middle-man, selling directly to fans, and making dollar$$$.
.
"Making money in a 'copyright-free' world"
cpeterso
We did... for a very brief period, we had the "Line Item Veto", which allowed the president to strike portions of laws, thus preventing congress from passing a bill that contained the meat of a law, while tacking on unrelated "pork barrel" projects to it that the president may not agree with.
I happen to agree with the Republicans that challenged the Line Iten Veto (and won) as well as the democrats in congress who (successfully) buried the attempt to amend our constitution to allow the Line Item Veto.
What we need is a constitutional amendment disallowing unrelated riders from being attached to legislation. This would put the power to nullify inappropriate portions of the law where it belongs, in the judiciary .
The Line Item Veto IMHO puts far too much power in the hands of the president, be he Republican or Democrat.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"... it looks like the RIAA is now ready to recommend to Congress that the revision be stricken from the books by the end of the year."
Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that the RIAA is in a position to recommend such things to Congress? It makes the government look like a corporatist puppet without a mind of its own and without any pretence of representing the wishes of non-corporate citizens. Are things really that bad?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
You are confused on several fronts here; let's see if I can help you out.
Firstly, let me point out that this copyright law only covers US artists. Secondly, since the rewriting of the Copyright Act in 1976, the US has *not* been in compliance with the Berne Convention regarding international copyright: copyright terms are far too long. Thirdly, you are actually talking about *2* different kinds of copyright: artist's copyright and performer's copyright.
Copyright was originally established as a government-granted monopoly of *limited* duration (28 years + one-time renewal of same for another 28 years). The idea was that, after a period of time for the author to gain monies from the sale of the copyrighted material, it would go into the public domain and anyone could then freely make a copy, sell it, etc.
Up until 1976, this was the case and the US was in compliance with the Berne Convention, which assured conformity with copyright law around the world. So, regarding pre-twentieth classical composers, you are, in a certain sense, correct. Those composers have now lost their copyright -- as artists. You could sit down, play on your keyboard your own version of, say, the 1812 Overture, rip it into a MP3, and sell it over the net.
BUT: a recording from, say 1964, of Leonard Bernstein conducting the New York Philharmonic playing that same piece is still protected by *performer's copyright*. You could not, for example, take a CD of that work, rip it, and post it for sale without inccurring the wrath of the copyright gods.
Now, in 1976, things changed. The Disney corporation realized that Mickey Mouse was about to go out of copyright (I am not making this up) and pressured the House of Representatives to rewrite the copyright laws so as to extend the term limit, to the term of creator's life plus 50 years. Since Walt Disney died in 1968, Mickey Mouse was now safe until 2018. Besides badly abusing the original intent of copyright laws, the US fell out of compliance with the Berne Convention, causing a rift with Europe.
Things actually got worse in 1996, when the Copyright laws were again rewritten. Besides extending copyrights to life of creator plus *75* years (MM safe until 2043), the law tightened up the "fair use" provision. ("Fair use" enabled, for example, reviewers to quote part of a work without being prosecuted under copyright laws.) Another thing that the rewrite did was to *illegalize* reverse engineering -- a common software practice. Plus it tilted the playing field in the direction of copyright owners in a number of other ways.
The bottom line, from your perspective is this: It's probably OK to trade classical music that was *recorded* before about 1920 -- that's out of both artists' and performer's copyright. Anything *since* then, however, *might* still be in performer's copyright, or had its copyright extended. Up to about 1950, there is probably a fair amount of music that *did not* have its copyright renewed. You're probably OK with that, but tread carefully. After 1950, your safest course, if you're not sure, is *don't*.
There are clearinghouses -- ASCAP and BMI come to mind -- whose sole job it is to collect royalties on recorded music. They would be able to tell you if a given piece by a given artist is still within copyright or not. You might also check with the Library of Congress, which is the official copyright depository for the United States.
Good luck!
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Users have no need to switch from CDs because the 16-bit 44.1 KHz waveforms stored on a CD are (to human ears) 100% noiseless. Dogs OTOH...
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?