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."
"I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period."
Why? Just because you believe so?
Then write a hit song and see how easy it is to keep doing so. See how you like working in a field that pretty much is dependant on the whims of taste and then be told, hey, entertainment has moved to something else now so we don't need you anymore...but we do like your other song and now we want it for free.
I'm sorry, but as a musician and song writer, I can't agree that it is your decision to make for me. Hotel California? Pop drivel (and better pop drivel than I ever wrote)...society will not be impacted negatively if art and/or craft is allowed to be restricted. Why? Because if it is as easy to create as the copyright haters believe, then make your own Hotel California type of music...after all, it takes absolutely no resources other than picking up a guitar from what I understand from the copyright deniers.
You have no right to demand someone elses work be released in any way. Period. Wow. That Period really makes me feel powerful, and a bit douchy and self-rightous,...yeah to R2.0 for showing me how to use it.
Now on to my own belief about my own works...I write music for other people. If they like it, I give it to them for money and they are able to do WHATEVER they want with it. It is no longer mine. I cannot make any moral statements about it. BUT anything I write that is for myself...I could care less about the copyright. As an artist? It makes no nevermind to me what someone does with it so long as the music is heard. Probably why I got out of the industry (err...occasionally I miss a mortgage payment because of my job in academia and have to whore myself to the industry), but I personally don't care. A lot of artists don't. A lot of artists will tell you that they could care less if you put their music out there on the interwebs and the naptorrents and all that.
I encourage my friends to hold on to their master recording rights, or even to keep multiple versions where they are very similar, but different enough that the labels can't say shit (ok, in one friends area, they TRIED to claim rights, but I helped document the recording process, and he ended up able to prove that his contract only covered the deliverables, not the products that came before...he owns all non-mechanical copyrights, therefore, the label could only complain about the fact he might have used some of the same multitracks in the process...but documentation proved otherwise).
I personally think it is moronic for an artist to hold on to their works forever, but it is a personal decision and if they wanted to vault their works and say Hey! What I Put Out And Sold Is ALL That Will Ever Be Released...that is their right to vault it. Not yours. Regardless of how well you think it was crafted. Again, personally, I find it wrong. But an artist should have the moral right to decide how THEIR work is released. Just because you possess a copy does not make it any more your decision to do otherwise.
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?