Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Time Bomb Set To Go Off
In September we discussed one isolated instance of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination. Now Wired discusses the general case — many copyrights from 1978 and before could come up for grabs in a few years. Some are already in play. "At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion. ... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the labels' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they're suing other companies for using, they're in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride."
First play
I do not see how this is bad, the publishers obviously hasn't been innovating and now fear their own demise by their own doing. As seen by the trends of income, artists themselves are the winners and publishers has been made obsolete.
Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.
Palm trees and 8
A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day. Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.
I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise. I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole. I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.
On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another? I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it. For example there is some ruckus in the evolution-creationism skirmishes because Darwin's The origin of the species is now in the public domain and some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute "annotated" copies of that book in college campuses ( (plural)alumnus= alumni, (plural)campus= campi? no?). So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
will we see some more innovative sampling, legal enough to go mainstream again?
Musicians should make music because they work for the people. I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation. Why can't I eat an orange in peace? Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!
I see I was not the only person chosen to bring back balance. What's the frequency, Kenneth?
I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more). It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years. This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law. Seriously.
Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree. I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
This is a disaster! Record labels will have to find some way of making people pay them for newer content!
Now, do you reckon they'll make the newer content worth hearing, or do you reckon they'll bribe lawmakers to force us to pay for it whether we listen to it or not (blank media taxation and the like)?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Maybe these aging musicians are realizing that immortality (spreading ones memes as widely as possible) is more important than personal wealth in the greater scheme of things.
Musicians should make music because they work for the people. I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation. Why can't I eat an orange in peace? Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!
You haven't visited the Ray Gun Pyramid.
Or for that matter the great Neo Library.
Neo Nacho.
Cool stuff. Artists will be giving publishers the same phrase publishers have been giving consumers: "You don't own the music you bought from us - you're just licensed to it"
There are numerous examples of young musicians signing very one-sided contracts and not fully grasping the implications until it's far too late.
A few of these have since gone on to become successful and have become rather more careful in their dealings with record companies. Prince immediately springs to mind, as does Courtney Love.
I cannot help but wonder - does this mean there's an entire generation of musicians who released successful work and got screwed by the record company who are now going back to their label and saying "Er... excuse me... I'd like my copyrights back, please." Could be interesting....
How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?
perhaps they should start producing good music again rather then autotune every pretty face.
At a time when the public hasn't gotten anything added to the public domain since the 1920's, the first thing they need is for valuable copyrights from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, much of which is still loved by music fans of all ages. Thankfully, the wheels are already in motion. ... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the musicians' best strategy to make use copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme advantage, they're in for a quite lucrative ride.
Seriously, the summary would suggest that this is bad news. It's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.
I am officially gone from
Goodbye, record labels.
Speaking of Courtney Love:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
is the date this will happen and when the music is from 1978
Musicians work for the people??? What, are they civil servants now?
I'm not volunteering to run it, mind you, but this calls for a campaign directed at the artists, to encourage them to get out from underneath the RIAA's thumb. Extol the merits of Creative Commons, of self-publishing, etc. Set up a website keeping track of those artists who've reclaimed their copyright, and cheer with each new name. It looks like there is a time limit on this, and some of the artists might not hear about it or might not think it's important.
It won't work on everyone, and some artists might be just as bad or worse than the RIAA, but overall the more copyrights the RIAA loses, the better it will be for everyone (except them).
And I look forward to seeing the case conclude by the end of my lifetime.
May the Maths Be with you!
The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination. Eveline characterized the labels’ conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”
Labels already file new copyrights for remasters. For example, Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five’s Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was “New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium.”
You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass
What you are describing is called "work made for hire" and in those cases the employer is considered the author. So for example, developers working for a software company could not come back 35 years later and cause trouble because it would be the software company that is legally considered the author and not the developer.
See 17 USC 101 (definition of what qualifies as "work made for hire") and 17 USC 201(b) (about how "work made for hire" relates to authorship).
arch liberals Don Henley and Babs scream "GIVE ME MY MONEY...." That's too funny.
Since a liberal is someone who wants personal freedoms protected but business regulated, I don't get the joke.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hm couscous...tasty!
Hold my beer and watch this!
Houston? We have chickens, and it looks like they are coming home to roost.
Karma is such a fun toy.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Musician work for the people who enjoy music. They shouldn't be whoring themselves to corporate America, which only rapes the musicians AND the music lovers.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
When making a statement (young musicians), it is usually proper to list some examples... oh wait, you didn't say TALENTED YOUNG MUSICIANS, whew...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Lets have a round of applause for music. It's going to escape its captors , the music industry, when they die.
Musicians need an industry like fish need bicycles. Musicians will thrive on their own and actually make some money.
Don't get me wrong, the way we find music is going to change. Change is good. No one with any brains will copyright music unless it's GPL like.
Musicians can still get paid for commercial use or just toss it to the world. Revenues from touring will go to the band instead of thieving middlemen and the band can pay for whatever services they require,pocketing the rest.
Quality? Let's think about what happens to art when it's industrialized. You get mass produced paintings to hang in trailer houses, yet there are still talented artists selling their unique paintings individually worldwide. Here the industry is largely ignored because talented artists haven't been made to rely on an industry or face obscurity.
So, people of the world, keep on doin what you can to kill the music industry, soon something wonderful is going to happen.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Offtopic? The summary states "the wheels are in motion".
My comment is that while they say "wheels are in motion", I don't believe anything will really happen, like in the Seinfeld episode. Just wait and see.
If they overprice their wares, their market will find substitutes, either legal or illegal, elsewhere. And if they stupidly decide that they want to start suing file sharers, they are in a much worse position than RIAA, since RIAA saves tons of money by using a single contracted "media investigator", and by sharing expert witnesses and other info between all of their legal cases.
IANAL, I'd that the usage rights would continue under whatever contract was made for them, similar to other situations where a company has sold a resource or rights to it, and then the ownership of the company itself changed.
One theory is that exists so the artist can get government protection of their work for a time, and in return work is entered into public domain when the time expires.
By that theory, my tax dollars (FBI, courts, etc) are used to protect your work for a set amount of time and I do have the right to demand that your works are released when the time expires.
He sold it for 35 years, so they get to KEEP it for 35 years.
If, after the deal, the deal changes, then like any contract when the terms change they can re-negotiate. If there's no extra money for the artist, why is that? Either
a) the extra 40 years isn't worth anything
or
b) the publisher is getting a freebie
in the first case, why extend copyrights, then? In the second, that's unjust enrichment. Rather like "piracy" is "theft" because they have something for which they haven't paid for. In the case of P2P, the music/movie/game, in the case of the recording labels, longer monopoly.
In the future bands will refer to this as the "old musicians retirement fund"
The music biz has known for at least seven years, probably more like a decade, that they were heading for dire straits exactly because they couldn't be arsed to sign up new talent (which takes some 10 years to mature as that is what humans need to become really good at something; compare "break through" stories, all the mainstay big names needed it, even child-prodigy Mozart), and instead chose to hash up previous fare with some one-shot novelty sauce. You know, having some young'uns re-do big hits, re-use golden oldie themes with an obnoxious beat, that sort of thing. Or selling "gangsta rap"; selling bad sex, worse drug abuse, and 'hood kill-thy-brother glory across the world. Originally that was music made by black slum schlemiels to get out of just such gangland.
The seven year figure because I attended ADE 2002 where all the european dance music bigwigs attended and they had it spelled out to them in various panels and presentations. Piracy has nothing on corporate greed and stupidity. I have no sympathy for the big publishers.
Musicians have several options, it's not like you have to sign with an oppressive record label if you don't want to. Often you make far more money if you do, so most musicians bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line. That is their choice to make. I'm always hearing interviews on NPR with musicians that are reasonably successful without signing onto a big label. It can be done, it's just harder work to get your music out there.
Both the record label and the musician are out to make money. The musician is the ultimate arbiter of how much they are willing to sacrifice for the easy money that the label is promising. While I'm not a fan of most record label tactics, I don't hold them solely accountable for their actions. If they didn't have so much desirable content, they wouldn't be able to be such dicks and get away with it. They don't create content, the musicians do. So, in my eyes they are equally culpable for the likes of the RIAA.
No one is entitled to the millions of dollars that some musicians can pull down. That they are willing to sell their soul for that possibility says a lot more about their character, than about the character of those purchasing said soul. No one in this day can honestly say that they didn't know the reputation labels have for screwing over musicians. If you enter into contract with them it is at your own peril.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
They can check out any time they like, but they can never leave.
I would argue that musicians work for whatever they want to work for. Some do it for the prestige, some do it for the money, some do it just for the sake of making music. They don't work for the public, they may only attempt to please the public. They may work for a label that's controlling or for one that allows creative freedom, again, it's not for the public. And as for the rant on corperate america, there are music companies in other countries that exist solely for profit, and there are companies in america that aim to allow creative freedom. please educate yourself before you start with the broad statements again.
... of Lola vs. Powerman and The Money-Go-Round!
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder.
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
We got the beat we got the beat WE GOT THE BEAT YAHHHH
Wow, that was extremely insightful/informative even after 9 years. Thanks for posting the link.
I would be seriously surprised if the music industry didn't see this one coming and isn't busy trying to avoid losing copyright grants. Maybe they even simply can't ovoid losing grants for those cases where the artist is deceased. It's very good that those companies lose copyright grants: material can now be archived and used for personal use or the sake of studying history.
it is your duty to not ignore current copyright law, but to do your best to actively destroy it. current copyright law impoverishes us culturally with ridiculous restrictions on the flow of culture simply for the sake of creating a business model for a business which isn't even necessary. current copyright law was meant as a gentleman's agreement amongst large media players sipping mojitos in oak paneled rooms, never meant as a bully club against the general public
until such time that copyright provisions return to normalcy: 5-10 years of protection for the creators only, and until such time that publishers are rendered economically untenable, it is your duty as a moral person to not ignore copyright, but to do as much economic damage as possible to the parasitic businesses known as publishers
they were a necessary evil in the pre-internet world. in the internet world, publishers are simply evil, having been rendered redundant by simple technological progress
it is time to wipe publishers from the face of the earth with a prolonged campaign to reduce their financial inflows to zero
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems to me that the problem with that is that the 'new recording', while it does have a second copyright, is still subject to the original copyright because it is a derivative work, right? So, the record company *might* hold the copyright on the derivative, but without permission from the primary copyright holder, they have no right to distribute the derivative work, I think? IANAL, so if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
Since a liberal is someone who wants personal freedoms protected but business regulated, I don't get the joke.
Both tend to be people who campaign on policies about the excesses of the rich and for redistribution of wealth. They argue that those who have money and seek it are somehow sinning, and yet, when it comes to their stack, they are just like any oil company.
This is my sig.
I would argue that musicians work for whatever they want to work for. Some do it for the prestige, some do it for the money, some do it just for the sake of making music.
I can only speak for myself here...
But I did it all for the nookie.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Okay, now I'm puzzled. I was aware of the 56 year issue, because of the heirs of Jerry Siegel reclaiming the copyrights to Superboy and Superman. The 56 year one has a clear justification: the copyright term was 56 years, but new laws added extra time to the copyright past that. The creator originally thought he was just selling the copyright for 56 years, so the extra time that we added could just as well go to him as to the guys he sold it to.
But where's this 35 years for works after 1978 coming from? I mean, it's there in the law, but it's not obvious where it's coming from.
It wouldn't be a time bomb if it wasn't 'set to go off'.
Sounds like a good place for OSS to step in and offer a secure downloadable-media sales component for websites. Make it easier for young/indie bands to sell their tracks right from their site and allow the bands with 70-year-old members a cheap way to supplement their social security checks.
This isn't a time bomb, fellows, it's a love bomb. Quit worrying and learn to love it.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. The central issue is copyright law. Historically, whatever an individual or corporation creates is eventually coopted into the public domain. The central question is, when should that happen? Should copyright entitle someone to a monopoly on his idea for five years, ten years, 15 years, or 20 years? Bear in mind - NO SANE COPYRIGHT was ever intended to entitle an author to a steady income for generations to come. Only since corporations came into the picture have copyrights been extended again and again. Corporations have no "life expectancy" comparable to an individual. In effect, the entire reasoning for a copyright has been preempted by the corporations. The goal is to have a copyright continue into perpetuity, so that those corporate fatcats can continue cashing checks forever.
Rant on corporate America? I didn't - yet. Would you really like me to get started on one? Perhaps you are completely unaware of the recent financial meltdown, due to unbridled greed? Maybe you're not up to date on banking schemes that are raising the interest rates on loans that have been outstanding for years? Oh man, you really don't want to get me started on a real rant.
But, back to those artists. Yes, they work for people. No matter whether the money is channeled through a corporation or not, the PEOPLE who like their music pay them. What the people don't like, they don't pay for, and what the people like, they will pay for. It's really that simple. And all of those creative works are supposed to belong to the people, eventually.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
But, back to those artists. Yes, they work for people. No matter whether the money is channeled through a corporation or not, the PEOPLE who like their music pay them. What the people don't like, they don't pay for, and what the people like, they will pay for. It's really that simple. And all of those creative works are supposed to belong to the people, eventually.
Well, no, because music licensing can utilize revenue streams from a variety of sources, not just people who buy records/songs.
But you'd know that if you had any idea what you were talking about and weren't posting this from your dorm room before heading off to Phil 101.
Dorm room? Oh please, can I have one? Look, youngster, at my name. See the 1956? That was the year of my birth. Don't even try to talk down to me, it makes you sound stupid.
As for those revenue streams - so fucking WHAT? Again - 5 or 10 years is long enough for copyrighted material to be monopolized by ANYONE. Music written and performed in 1999 should now be in the public domain. You want 15 years? Convince me - I might agree.
Copyright law is an abortion, no matter how many ways you have of making money from the copyright.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Most of those typically currently labeled as liberals and conservatives are actually populists. The self-applied labels and those of corporate media don't change their actual tendencies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
musicians finally getting their music back -- its about frickin time...
I am an artist (musician for this discussion). As my "publisher" I grant you permission to print 10,000 CD's @ $3 each for my royalty, payable now. After you have sold said 10,000 copies you may contract with me to print another 10,000 copies at my rate of $3 each, again paid in advance.
Musicians work for the people??? What, are they civil servants now?
Yes, I know what you meant, but isn't everyone who gets paid ultimately working for the people, at least in the most liberal interpretation of that phrase? Even that motivational speaker who reminds me of Larry the Cable Guy encourages entrepreneurs and business people to have the mindset of "serving others"? And he's pretty conservative, just like Jesus told us to be.
(p.s. Thanks google: Larry Winget. Quote:
"Money is the result of serving people well. Serving people is an honorable thing. Money is the result of hard work. Hard work is honorable. Having money is a wonderful thing in your life. It pays for college for your kids. It pays for healthcare when you and the people you love get sick. It takes care of your mom and dad when they get old and need help. It feeds the homeless and helps those who are less fortunate. It pays your taxes to build roads and provide fire and police protection. It is to be appreciated, saved, invested, and ENJOYED. ")
I am not a crackpot.
/. coolness derives from your UID, not your DOB. 4 digit owns 7 digit... hopefully, you are old enough to understand this.
I did it all for the cookie.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Yeah, obviously I will take you at your word that your nick is a reflection of your true nature AND that you're being truthful. Look at me go!
I don't need to convince you. You need to convince the US Congress and SCOTUS that it should be different than it is now. I happen to agree with them.
Oh noes, the records industry might have to let the ORIGINAL CREATORS have the rights to THEIR OWN WORK again! The sky is falling, whatever shall we do? I know, let's whine to Congress that we'll die if we can't continue ripping off musicians for all eternity! /sarcasm off
So musicians are finally getting what every sensible writer has written into his contract from the get-go--rights revert to the author after X years, or Y years out-of-print? Dang, I can see where music company accountants might be feeling the pain... they might actually have to re-negotiate to pay the creators what their copyrights are worth... and now these guys are big enough they can hire agents and lawyers that negotiate less one-sided contracts.
I feel so bad for the music companies, I really do. That's why I'm laughing so hard at this. Geez, did Wired really need to publish a one-sided article obviously written by an RIAA lawyer?
---dragoness
To buy in bulk and pass along (some of) your bulk discount.
But not the ridiculous money cow they have now.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Like any tool, it can be used well, it could be used badly.
Not (yet?) into 80s rap, but I do have some music that makes good use of samples.
K. Flay's "MASHed Potatoes" comes to mind, but it happens to use all (as far as I can tell) recent samples what wouldn't be affected by this
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Here's to the obliteration of the entire music industry as we know it!
I may actually start purchasing music again, if I know it's going to the actual people who wrote it, rather than to pay a bunch of scumbag corporate lawyers who sue little old ladies, penniless college students, and 12 year old children for millions of dollars for non-commercially downloading a few songs.
I don't believe the file sharing concern was ever about "profit loss". It was always about losing the iron grip of absolute top down control over what people are "allowed to" experience by the revolving door of corporo-political lawyers bankers and monopoly men, to a decentralized and uncontrolable model that leaves their greedy asses having to get a real job, instead of leeching off of the creative world like their counterparts do in other "business sectors".
I'll have a party when the bankruptcies start rolling on out. :D
Cheers!
The big labels should act a bit like being part of a cooperative. You grant them a share of profits, and they do the work of marketing, distribution, and so forth. Going with smaller non-name labels really hurts that, as it means the musician has to be much more active in the other parts the process. So instead of being an artist, they have to be artist plus promoter plus business manager. The same model works with visual arts (let a studio market, sell and license your paintings), and even farming (sell to Sunkist and Sun-maid coops).
This breaks down when the big labels treat the artists as workers-for-hire rather than partners.
You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass
Indeed, that does appear to happen. From TFA:
"This might sound familiar, because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs — right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs."
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Music publishers and other copyright holders have abused the system for years to extend copyright to a ridiculous extent for their benefit. Our founders envisioned creators being protected to make money from their creations through copyright. They did not want to bring back the Guild's virtual stranglehold on permanent copyright. So, they specifically tried to pass things into the Public domain.
Which contrary to what the big publishers would say actually helps spurn others to make derivative works, learn and others to make money of lower cost complications of public domain works.
In the long run freeing old copyrighted works to the public domain benefits everyone. Including those who would like to hold now copyrights.
So just get over it already, it shouldn't just be works from 1978 and before and even this doesn't go far enough.
it's Eaglesband.com, not eagles.com. This was an error in the wired article, since corrected on their site.
Too bad films are works-for-hire, else we'd be only eight years away from switched copyright on Dr. Strangelove.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
An independent artist I can think of right away if Jonathan Coulton. Then I think of the song 'Sell Out' by Reel Big Fish and find myself lost.
If you really want to see a dust-up, wait until 2012 - only three years from now. In 2012 it will be fifty years since the release of "Love Me Do", the first single by The Beatles (a Liverpool rock band. You may have heard of them.)
and I hate the fu*king Eagles man!
So...we don't need publishers to CREATE good music...and we don't need publishers to DISTRIBUTE good music...and we don't need publishers to be our music vendors once the music exists...
So...what do we need the music industry for again? Besides backing tracks to Ford commercials?
There's a nice troll, now go back under your rock.
Maybe the record labels have such a corner on the market that they can squeeze out the independent musicians who would rather not sell their souls?
Sorry to tell you this late in the game, but I did it for the nookie... nookie with that cookie I later gave you.
"whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio"
That song is considered by many people to be the greatest pop song of all time. If you really understand the writing and arrangement on the song, you'd understand why.
I'll bet you're a Lady Gaga fan, aren't you?
Copyright law is a compromise: A temporary restriction of our rights of free speech, with the intent of encouraging creative works. Anything from the 50's, 60's and 70's should be in the public domain. Lengthy copyright law robs from the public domain (which is, in essence, our culture) to grant wealth. Under current copyright law, most of that wealth gets granted to oligarchists who perform little useful function. That artists are taking back their copyrights and publishing themselves is positive, in that at least the artists are reaping the rewards of their labors rather than layers and accountants, but it's bad in that the work is more than 20 years old and belongs in the public domain.
Technological innovation in dissemination of information, and reduced costs in distribution, change the cost benefit ration of copyright law, which means we should be shrinking the power and length of copyright law. Unfortunately the oligarchists have very effective lobbies, and benefit from the ignorance of people like you, who have strong opinions despite knowing nothing about the issue, and are unable to value anything using any yardstick other than sums of financial transactions.
On the other hand, having older artists take back their copyrights might be a good thing. Perhaps in the long run it will weaken the copyright oligarchists, eventually allowing society's voice to be heard, as well as that of the expensive lobbyists.
As of 2005, the "big four" music groups control about 70% of the world music market, and about 80% of the United States music market.
This would seem to indicate that it is still possible for musicians to operate without being represented by the "Big 4". That's not an insignificant number of musicians that did not sell their soul.
There is no reason why a musician has to try for the big time other than greed, which we all suffer from, but is not actually an excuse.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I did it all for my bookie... I was in deep, deep man. And they threatened the jewels.
35 years is even enough time to drain a lot of milk from someone elses artwork. Some of these people didn't get a lot of money for the reinvigorated success of their works.
I personally don't respect copyright as it is. It no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It allows middlemen to maintain control of the market and to suck up profits that belong to the artists. They control what is accepted as popular (think radio play) and tend to generally harm the progress of the useful arts.
It now becomes clear that he IS, in fact, in support of copyright, just not the way it has been contorted. It has a stated purpose that is continually ignored by Disney/congress. You are right there is a huge gap here.
I'd love to see a site called Artist P.O's Nothing but the addresses of the people that deserve the continuing profits. The labels perform a service for the artist. blah, blah, rant, yawn something about inequitable contracts. blah, blah, rant rant.
When an officer of the law breaks the law they are no longer acting as an officer of the law and need to be dealt with a
Eagles music should not require any copyright protection beyond that afforded to other forms of white noise. Very few forms of noise are whiter.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
just out of extreme curiosity and probably off topic.
ALEN KLEIN? how will this affect all his "deals" and the rights of his heirs. will the stones get back their prime period early recordings? what about the countless top selling oldies but goodies this guy somehow managed to own?