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?
"It looks like he's shipping his grandmother a CD-R of 'Rock Around the Clock' remixed 13 times... ARREST THIS MAN!"
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
The RIAA is the Recording Industry Ass'n of the AMERICAS... but you can bet anything they'll try to get their fingers into that one. If there was an RIAE (Europe) in the 1450's, Gutenberg would have been shot and his press burned.
Yeah, but, I just don't think Elvis sounds as good when he's been translated to French.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I never thought I would see in my own lifetime a copyright expire. Honestly, this is an interesting feeling that I can legally use some music of my culture I grew up with without being charged with a crime to do so? Except, this probably doesn't help me much since I live in America, eh? *sigh*
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
"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, which has strongly advocated for copyright protections. "The industry is regretful that these absolutely piratical products are being released."
I'm quite regretful that such stupidical comments can make the NYT
Any music that has an expired copyright is of the public domain.
However, the RIAA & MPAA and other organizations have government backing, and have extended United States copyright laws well beyond the European 50 or so. I believe the current law is 95 years in America, and it can only be made longer by our wonderfully corrupt politicians.
Can I have like, +5 for calling politicians corrupt? Everybody else gets points for just spouting crap, and as long as they say something against the "system" they get hella points. Oh well.
Wasn't one of the reasons Congress extended copyrights in the US to bring them in line with the longer European copyrights? What copyrights were those?
From yahoo
What, me Tweet?
Well, what I would like to see is a lot of european bands doing their own versions of the songs as they no longer have to have permission of the original copyright holders. Many copyright holders of those older songs have been very reluctant and restrictive to allow other artists to record and publish them. so I predict a wave of creativity in ways of making updated 50's tunes from european bands. It may be quite interesting what they come up with.
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
If you think that society will fall apart without the stratifying influence of capitalism, and that the idea of intellectual property is necessary for the continued prosperity of the US, I say that's b.s. and there are other possible viable economic models.
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
My understanding was that recordings in the US weren't even covered by copyright until 1972 or so.
Now i'm going to do some googling...
February 15, 1972
Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date.
For reference
Hmm. Now, if i'm reading this right, the actual sound recordings of pre-1972 music aren't even covered by copyright and probably are freely redistributable, right? Which means...who cares about the Euro copyrights from a US perspective?
Kindly correct me if i'm wrong.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The RIAA belives that since you can now legally make copies of songs from the 50's in Europe that no one in America will buy their overpriced American copies in favor of the cheaper public domain European versions. So they want more control at our borders. Damn the RIAA, US copyrights should be expiring, damn the Bono Amendment.
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.
For crying out loud... only 50 years?! Poor Elvis, he is going to have to stop collecting European royalties from his music. Luckily, he can still collect money from Americans. I wouldn't want Elvis to have to get another job. What will he do? Start flipping burgers?
Sex - Find It
"All these works are yours, except Europe's. Extend no copyrights there."
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Nop...the US has been presuring the rest of the world to fall in line with their copyright restrictions. Thank god they've failed :)
:)
As for me, I'm so damned happy about this: I love Callas, and the great jazz and blues bands/songs. They also make great 'film' music, very atmospheric/moody. Now I can put them under my homemade 3d movies totaly without fear of being asked uncomfortable questions about payment whenever or wherever I show them of.
And what to think of actual good filmmakers, who couldn't secure the rights to that piece they wanted to have under that certain scene in their movie...now they have a few more options. This is a good thing
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
That's another annoyance of DRM - it doesn't disable when the copyright expires. It's de-facto permanent copyright.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Excuse me. Was there ever an EXPENSIVE Elvis?
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.
Think about what Turkewitz is saying. Importing public domain material from Europe to the US is piracy.
I'm sure Neil firmly believes what he is saying, and that Jack Valenti firmly believes watching tv without watching the commercials is "theft of programming." These people live in a COMPLETELY unreal world, which is why we have to make them shut the hell up and go away, instead of letting them write our laws for us. This is why you should not buy RIAA music. Pay to listen to local bands, support musicians that distribute their own music online, ignore the RIAA-created fantasy world of big-time music and let the RIAA shrivel up and die.
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.
More people need to actually help things by proofreading at: Distributed Proofreading.
Distributed Proofreading actually contributes to the public domain. Show the politicians that it's important by giving them a thriving public domain that they will want to supply with new works.
I'll leave the Elvis to others, but I can imagine doing really great things with remixes and resamples using the old Maria Calls, Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk as freely available source material.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
all this means is that lessig is right in eldred v. ashcroft.
copyrights should foster innovation. that is the only reason they should exist. they should exist to line corporate pockets. so they should expire with the death of the author. if corporations via sonny bono extend them unnaturally beyond the lifetime of the author, then copyrights instead suppress innovation. 50 years? 95 years? whatever. copyrights should rightly expire when the author is rip.
this expired here but not there bs is just another example of why extending copyrights unnaturally by greedy corporations is a bad idea.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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!!!
There are two types of royalities paid out, copyright for the songwriters and the mechaniacal royalty for the musicials and singers on a recording. As I know it copyright is for 25 years with 1 renewal allowed. So this is kind of a non story. Songs go public domain after 50 years. UNLESS like some late classical composers to make sure their families would be able to make money into the future would write arrangement of their key pieces. So at the end of the 50 years the family could copyright the arrangement and collect royalites on it. Assumeing the arrangement is used by anyone.
Now the mechinacal royalites on records like an Elvis recording itself, I don't know when those actually end. All it would mean is after 50 years you wouldn't have to pay songwriters royalies, but mechanical royalities may still need to be paid.
No copyright expires in Germany just after 50 years. If a work is copyrighted, these rights will expire 70 years after the author's death. (Substitute "droit d'auteur" for copyright if you want to).
What expires now, after 50 years, are the rights of the perfoming artists, and the those who made the records and distributed them.
This means that only a piece of music can be copied legally if, (a) the composer, songwriter etc. has been dead for at least 70 years, (b) the original release was 50 years ago, and (c) you make your copy from one of the origianl records. (With subsequent, say CD, releases, the record company gets new rights for 50 years.)
So I doubt that many mass-market compatible music recordings will suddenly become unencumbered by copyright law, at least here in Germany. I suspect the situation is similar in other European countries.
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.
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!!!!
Spider Robinson wrote a short story, called Melancholy Elephants that has an interesting take on the copyright issue. Do artists REALLY need a 95-year copyright? I can understand copyright for the life of the author, and possibly his family, but beyond that, it's a little ridiculous. I recommend reading the story .. Very good insight..
-- Karma is for people who think they matter.
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.
He already was flipping hamburgers at the Silver Diner on Franconia Road next to Springfield Mall; but before I could tell anybody, he quit and moved on somewhere.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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!
A new performance and recording of an old song would be protected by copyright. But a new digital remastering of a public domain recording isn't a new work any more than transforming a .wav to .mp3 makes it a new work.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If the copyrights expire on Elvis, then what impetus is there for Elvis to create more works if he know he can only profit from them for 50 years?
Its the beginning of the end!
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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...
It's actually life + 70 years, which is a pretty long time
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the law that defines the copyright term as a function of the life of the author discriminatory?
Here's my logic:
Person A is 10 years old, and is a prodigy. There's no history of major disease (like cancer) in his family, and everybody in his family lives for an average of 100 years - for the sake of argument, he lives until he's 100. He writes his first symphony at the age of 10 years, and (as he lives to be 100 years old) his copyright lasts 160 years (100 - 10 + 70)
Person B is 46 years old, but has a family history of cancer and diabetes. She writes her first symphony at 46, lives to 50, and so her copyright only lasts 110 years.
So if all people are equal under the law, why does Person A get 160 years of protection, but the same law grants Person B only 2/3rds the same amount?
It's quite clear that the current copyright law discriminates against the elderly, as well as terminally ill, and people who have a genetic predisposition to cancer or other life-shortening diseases.
I'm not an American, so can someone tell me if there are laws against discrimination?
Actually, Walt Disney would argue that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, so no, not anyone could use Mickey Mouse to market their product.
Several years ago, I bought a VHS tape with "Bugs Bunny" and the likeness of Bugs on the front and language to the effect of "This videotape contains public domain audiovisual works and is not endorsed by Warner Communications" on the back. Less than a week ago, I saw several similar tapes for sale at my local Walgreens store. If what you're saying is true, that trademark law gives Disney a monopoly on the early Mickey Mouse cartoons even after their copyrights have expired, then I'd expect Time Warner to have prevailed in legal action against these sellers of "Bugs Bunny" tapes years ago.
Or you could just follow the example of the maintainers of the GPL version of Star Control 2, who call their product "The Ur-Quan Masters" instead of "Star Control 2".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Does anybody know what copyright period is in Canana?
Yes, Life plus 50.
Natasha: Vhat Are you doink Dahling?
Boris: Burning coppies of that Capitalist pig Elvis' first album. Ve vill sell them by bajillions and buy a nuke from Korea for Fearless Leader's Birthday.
Rocky: Stop right there Badinov! Jack Valenti sent us to put the kibosh on your illegal operation.
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a customs agent out of my hat!
Boris: Foiled again!
Natasha: Don't worry poopsie, I hear Saddam Husein has some Anthrax he vill sell cheap. That vill make good gift for Fearless Leader's birthday.
Bullwinkle: Kinda makes you wonder if we're going after the wrong people for the wrong reasons don't it?
Customs Agent: (Snapping on latex glove) I'm affraid we're going to have to search you two to make sure there isn't any contraband coming into the country.
Rocky: Not again!
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
How do you think Disney makes all their money? The don't own classic greats such as "Pinochio"
Disney owns Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940). Every other direct[1] film adaptation of the novel The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi (read an English translation here) has failed at the box office because the differences from the familiar Disney version are too jarring. Just look at how bad Disney's Pinocchio 2.0 (2002) is doing, even though it is more faithful to the novel, chapter by chapter, than any previous feature film adaptation of the novel. The obvious conclusion is that Disney has co-opted the common knowledge of Pinocchio so as to create a false impression in the average American's mind that "if it's not Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940), it's not the real Pinocchio."
[1] I don't consider Short Circuit or A.I. a direct adaptation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sound fair? It's how intellectual "property", if it really were property, would have to work. Good thing it's not. The idea of intellectual "property" just doesn't jive, for a variety of reasons:
- The "creation" involved is not creation ex nihilo; all authors and composers draw on previous work for inspiration and source material. Granting an exclusive property right to the last one to contribute to what is essentially historically a group effort is akin to only giving the beer to the last guy who helped lift; it makes the system morally unjust.
- If copyright were a property right it would be unable to expire; as you pointed out, owning something now means you'll own it 96 years from now. Yet this would cause copyright to quickly be in violation of many property-rights theories. For example, John Locke says that an appropriation of property to oneself is just if and only if one leaves "enough and as good for others". But if copyright is a property right and thus perpetual, we would very quickly run out of things left for others; as previously mentioned, "creation" of property in this sense involves drawing upon the work of others, and to do so would be illegal. There might be the occasional truly new idea, but copyright would fast reach a point where we were not leaving "enough and as good".
- The notion of copyright as property grants an exclusive property right in something which is non-exclusive. In the case of physical property, the right makes sense because physical items can generally only be possessed by one person at a time and the stability of society demands that some form of ownership be instituted in order to prevent constant strife over such possession; this principle is the basis of several major theories of property (e.g., Thomas Hobbes' and David Hume's). However, with something which can be possessed non-exclusively, applying such a rule makes little sense; if all can enjoy and benefit from possession of a thing simltaneously with no strife and no harm, would it not be an evil to deny such enjoyment and possession?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg; I've been researching the philosophy of copyright for a damned long time and while there are certainly some fuzzy areas, I can sy with absolute certainty that copyright cannot be "property" in the sense in which you have used the term.