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."
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.
Your post is as abso-fucking-lutely stupid as saying 'I dislike like your post because you used no innovative new words, you flockenshnarpet'.
If I like the beat from a song but loathe the vocals, and if I find a song that samples that beat in a way I find pleasant, then has that product not been improved?
If at one time in the past the new song did not exist and I had no way to hear it, yet at current moment it does exist to bring me pleasure when the first could not, then hasn't something original been created?
How deep do I have to bury my head in the sand until I'm convinced that the artist who created the version I actually like didn't perform me any valuable service?
How big of a boner do I need to get upon hearing the word 'original' in order to drive me to defend something's originality as fiercely as you?