Slashdot Mirror
European Copyrights Expire; RIAA Nervous
colmore writes "This article in today's New York Times (free reg. req.) discusses the expiration of European copyrights for recordings made in the 1950s. Now "bootleg" labels can legitimately print a lot of still-popular early rock, country, jazz, and classical albums. The good folks at the RIAA are trying to establish stricter customs controls. So does this mean cheap Elvis or a diluted pool of products?"
Does this work the same way in the US? Is older music no longer copyrighted? I assume this is NOT the case, or else P2P networks would have alot more legitimacy. Will US music ever go into the public domain?
Are their any existing laws that would prevent me from bringing something back here for personal use?
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
The problem in America is that Congress has implemented retroactive extensions to copyrights.
What this means is that someone created some content, at year 0, with full knowledge that the copyright would expire in X years. At year (X - 1), Congress extends copyrights to (X + Y) years. Now, said content is still under copyright until year (X + Y), even though it's creator had accepted the fact that it would fall into the public domain at year X.
This is what Lessig was in front of the Supreme Court for. Congress can arbitrarily apply a copyright extension every time a chunk of media (eg. "Steamboat Willie", owned by Disney - the first appearance of Mickey Mouse) is about to fall into the public domain.
Clearly, Walt was okay with the idea of Mickey becoming public domain in X years, but Eisner sees things a bit differently...
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
The correct response to combat an influx of recordings imported from countries where the copyrights have expired would be to SLASH PRICES on domestic copies of these same 50-year-old recordings. Sell an Elvis CD for $3.99 and there's no incentive for consumers to pay $5.99 (to cover shipping costs) for the identical CD from a European label.
Unfortunately, the RIAA and their constituent member record labels have grown so accustomed to using legislation as a weapon against their own sales base (that's US, yo) that the idea of selling CDs for cheap (it doesn't even have to be at a loss, they could still profit healthily) hasn't even crossed their minds as a way of maintaining their market share.
When those works were created in the '50s, it was with the understanding that their copyright would only continue for a couple of decades -- not for a couple of centuries. There appeared to be sufficient economic incentives to create them back then. Now that they're legitimitely PD in Europe, I think that that's a good thing.
It's the people who want to keep these recordings out of the public domain that are the real pirates.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Now a lot of the jazz catalog is public domain in Europe, while in the U.S. we're limited to pre-1922 dreck like Moonlight Bay.
It would be really cool if jazz could start to flourish again in Europe via the internet, with people being able to trade their recordings of songs, broadcast their gigs via internet radio, etc.
Find free books.
I see your point, and it's very valid, but there's a flaw in that argument. Let's use Mickey Mouse as an example.
The root of the problem is that when Walt created Mickey, and published his film, he essentially entered into a contract with the public. He agreed that he had a specific number of years from which to profit off of his creation (and he clearly took great advantage of this). Now, the Disney corporation (standing in for Walt himself) has not held up their end of the bargain.
The public agreed, in exchange for not using the intellectual property of Disney for some period of time, that they would gain the possesion of that property for the good of society at large. We held up our end of that bargain (sure some people didn't, but Disney was allowed to sick their lawyers on those folks, as well as use our legal infrastructure for that purpose), so where's the part that benefits us??
Yes, it's certainly in Eisner's interests to extend copyrights (including doing it retroactively). I do not fault him for endorsing such a policy. What I do have a problem with is the way he endorses it, and the fact that Congress doesn't understand or care about the public's side of things. The RIAA/MPAA have made quite a few shady deals (Hollings isn't called "senator Disney" for nothing) in order to get legislation to swing their way. This is really what's wrong with copyright law as it stands (and how it seems to be progressing).
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening?...
Will having "Steamboat Willie" (or any other equally old work) in the public domain really hurt the copyright holder? Is there really so much demand for Steamboat Willie tapes, DVDs, T-shirts, cereal, and whatnot that if it was freely available it would really affect their bottom line? Ok, I'm exaggerating slightly, but my point is some media company's (like Disney's) whole operation is not going to come crashing down if some near-100 year old work is in the public domain.
sudo eat my shorts
Copyright protection lasts only 50 years in Europe compared to 95 years in the United States
Only 50 years?
"The import of those products would be an act of piracy," said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America
Piracy? When it's perfectly legal, not to mention more than reasonable?
Mr. Turkewitz said, "We will try to get these products blocked," arguing that customs agents "have the authority to seize these European recordings even in the absence of an injunction brought by the copyright owners."
In other words, only abide by the rule of law as long as it's convenient and profitable?
I guess this just goes to show, yet again, who's really in charge.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
While copies of Steamboat Willie leagally floating around does not directly scare Disney that much, it is the character of Mickey Mouse that does.
Today you cant use the Mouse's image without being hounded (and loosing to) disney's Lawyers. When the copyright expires, you will be able to use the image of Mickey Mouse (as he appears in Steamboat Willy) since that image is now in the public domain.
The potential loss of control of the Mickey Mouse Image is what gives Disney the Willies.
You should not that this is an extreme case, it is not just a story or song that is loosing it's copyright, but a Image that is close to, if not, a Trademark. I can understand why Disney wants to protect it, but extension of copyrights is not the right answer.
Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?
When Europeans start LEGALLY posting MP3's of this material on the internet? After all it IS legal in Europe so those countries don't have to demand this stuff be banned from the 'net. Oh it's illegal here in the states, well foo on you!
I think that copyrights on books, music, plays (any performance or written art) should only be legally held by individuals NOT corporations and the copyright limited in term to the lifetime of that individual. IOW it becomes public domain AFTER the copyright holders death.
Now when it comes to things like movies where there isn't a single person to claim the copyright things do get a little muddy, but since a human lifetime is about 72 years on average and a person might copyright something at anytime during that lifetime set the life of a corporate copyright on
art at something between 50-75 years NO LONGER!!!!
Next time you need something nitpicked to death, you know who to call. ;)
If Mickey Mouse is a trademark, Disney have failed to aggressively defend it.
There's at least two instances where Mad Magazine have parodied Mickey Mouse (Mickey Rodent) using exact copies of his, and Donald's, Goofy's and Pluto's image, for the purposes of parody, which isn't allowed under Trademark Law, I believe.
The cartoons went unchallenged, and were created in the early 50's, so their Trademark could be argued to have lapsed. [IANAL etc.]
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
No need for P2P. It's perfectly legal to put this stuff up on Web sites in Europe. Of course, the RIAA will try to make US ISPs block access to these sites, but this will give the US telecommunications industry more incentive to oppose the RIAA's agenda.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The US bitches about China and other nations about censorship all the time.
Will the US take steps to censor European websites? (Hey! Be like China and censor websites that conflict with the -ISM your country worships even if the content of those websites is perfectly legal within those other countries!)
Heck, if it's legal to import this music, then it's got to be legal to download it...Right? If you can sell records and sell downloadable music, how is downloading any different than making some copies and shipping them here?
I wonder if this also means that all those old Disney movies are no longer under copyright.
It also leads to an interesting question about a possible long term strategy. The **AA's could assert that it's illegal to link to sites legally loaded with content if the content is under copyright anywhere. They could then lobby for perpetual copyright in some other country and still effectively keep control over the Internet distribution of content forever...
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Let's be honest here. Steamboat willy is not making disney any money. I do not know if mickey becomes public domain or not with that release, but let's assume he does.
Disney has always made many classic fairytells incredibly well like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. Others have made the same movies in animated form, only disney's are still popular. Let's look at the anime Dragon Ball and DBZ. Both were based on the manga and made by the same guy, they were incredibly entertaining. DBZ quite probably was/is the most popular anime series ever(as said by a number of source, but probably unsubstantiated). Dragon Ball GT was a sequel to Dragon Ball Z not based on the manga. It sucked bad.
The point? Disney is crazy, even if they lost the copyright on Mickey Mouse, in all likelyhood no one else would be able to make a decent Mickey Mouse cartoon. Disney has always been a big force in the entertainment industry, as is shown by most of the other animated fairytails not being as well known as the Disney ones. And even if someone managed to revive mickey mouse and make a fortune, Mickey isn't really making disney a whole lot with his cartoons today. The brand name recognition with Mickey is fixed for disney as well. When people see Mickey, they will automatically think Disney. So if other studios did manage to make cartoons it would be an advertisement for Disney.
In short, Eisner is a moron. Instead of paying for lawyers and buying off politicians, he should invest his money into making a better product. Overall Disney's movies have been going downhill. Admittedly some of them are good such as Monster Inc, but for the most part the majority of Disney movies are starting to suck lately. He should spend less time worrying about nothing and more time worrying about Disney's future.
This is how this should work 1. A work is copywrited for the life of the author, and no longer. 2. A work is considered to be part of the public domain (IE, can be shared through whatever means available, not for profit) if the author is not actively distributing the work, or an authorized distributor of the work ceases to distribute said work (As in out of print CDs, movies... Basically, if I can't go to the store and buy it, I should be able to get it through whatever public domain channel of my choice without having to fear being chased after.) These two simple things would basically turn the market on its ear... All kinds of things would be going public domain within reasonably short periods of time because there would just be too much content to distribute.. Publishers and record companies can not afford to continue to distribute every single release that has ever been made, nor can all of these fit into. Also, its good for the authors of these works to have things go into the public domain during their lifetimes under these set of rules as it can cause interest to surge to the point that a distributor that is doing their homework would see that something is becoming popular again, negotiate distribution rights with the author, and once again have the work put out in its whole, possibly in a higher definition media, or with new artwork, etc. After the authors death, then simple supply and demand can drive distribution.. You can just get the public domain kazaa version, or you can pick up a store copy from the distributor of your choice if its a popular item, being that the popularity of the item drives the distributors into maintaining the quality of the release. This would also probably lead to a boom in restoring older works that have deteriorated or have been edited or otherwise abridged. oh well enough babbling...