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."
The copyrights aren't expiring. There's a provision in the Copyright Act of 1978 that allows the original artist (or their heirs) to terminate a copyright they sold and take it back after 35 years. Seriously, it's in TFA.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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.
Yes, that's true.
So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?
Because the copyrights are not expiring. I'd explain, but you could just RTFA, which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Basically the provision was put into the legislation to give the Congresspeople political cover when they extended copyright terms again. This way they pretend to care about the artists (who don't give them as much money as the labels and producers), and because they do that the artists get something out of it. There has already been some litigation on the issue, particularly when the original copyright holder died and there are multiple family members involved in trying to get the revoked rights, IIRC. From the publisher/producer side, they don't think about it as political cover because all that matters to them is that they'll lose the rights unless they renegotiate--and if the artist was successful, the copyright holder is often now in a position to get a much better deal.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
From the article (which no one bothered to read):
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright."
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc. Maybe even software? I mean, why not? It'd be impossible to track down the original developers and offer them equal rights to the code but this will have to be dealt soon. And hopefully not in the way they have traditionally dealt with software and copyright.
My work here is dung.
Yes, the Latin plural of campus is campi.
That is because the orchestral recording is generally subject to copyright, except possibly for a few very ancient gramophone recordings.
If you are speaking Latin, the plural of campus is campi. If you are speaking English, it's campuses.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural_of_campus
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus
Both are valid. Campuses is standard, campi is not.
*shrugs*
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
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?
It won't. A licensed use of a song can't be retroactively unlicensed just because the copyright changed hands. Once it's licensed, it's licensed.
However, if the game companies want to use some of the same songs in future versions of the game, they may find themselves negotiating with different people this time, who may have different terms, or may even decide against licensing altogether.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
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).
The original publisher was already paid for that music by the retailer. What's on the shelf and gets sold is revenue for the retail store at that point.
Remember the crux of copyright - copyright gives you the legal authority to make copies (or grant that ability to someone else under certain terms). Any CD's produced PRIOR to the licensing agreement being terminted would still be perfectly sellable works because it was the production of the disc and not the sale that is being governed. However, after the agreement ended the publisher would then have to cease production of new discs.
The only thing that worries me though is when it comes to a single artist (or band), I wonder how difficult it is for them to get their music on multiple services. I mean, sure anybody with sense will get their stuff on iTunes, but though it now lacks DRM and the tracks are usable in Linux, the actual store doesn't work on anything but Mac and Windows. If you want to use other platforms you're stuck with Amazon or other MP3 stores. I wonder how aggressive your independent artists will be getting their digital wares into stores other than the #1?
I expect some type of service SEMI related to current publishers to crop up eventually that specializes in getting music submitted to multiple digital venues for sale. Unlike the insane agreements of old though, given the power that the author has now I'd expect such services to be more of a 1-time fee for the job rather than usurping their copyrights entirely.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
RIAA member companies
What heresy is this? Slashdot can always get behind the bashing of a big bad faceless association, but now you want to actually get to the heart of this and punish the members? From Wikipedia:
'The RIAA represents over 1,600 member labels...The largest and most influential of the members are the "Big Four" which include:
* EMI
* Sony Music Entertainment
* Universal Music Group
* Warner Music Group'
Don't tell the Sony fanboys.
The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me. I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.
Please listen to some Skinny Puppy from the 80s, the Plunderphonics album, the collective works of Duran Duran Duran*, etc. Sampling in the right hands is a very effective musical element. Sadly that sort of work isn't done very often anymore, because of the legal barriers that have been created.
* not Duran Duran, although I like their music too.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
It's not a matter of leverage. By changing the copyright act, they changed deals which were already closed. If it was 1970, and I gave you my work for 35 years before it naturally fell into public domain, then in the 1990s, the law changes it to 75, shouldn't *I* have some say about it?
There are two different provisions. Look at 17 USC Sec 203. If your work was made after 1978, you have a five year period beginning 35 years after transferring the copyright to decide to terminate the transfer and retain rights to the work.
If, as you claim, this five year period was put in place for the sake of people who had assigned copyrights before the duration of protection was changed in the 1976 Act, they would not have included the right of termination for works made after 1978. Since the provision applies to works not yet made, it's not changing deals that were already struck.
The section 304 bit (works made before 1978) uses your logic, but if I remember my legislative history correctly, the section 203 part was at least nominally designed to offer creators better bargaining power against publishers.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Kind of. To be pedantic (and I hope I remember my Latin correctly), campi is plural of campus, but only in certain cases.
/hand.
In the original sentence he said "in college campuses (campi?)". "In" triggers the ablative case ("ablative of place"), and plural the plural version of this is "-is" [1][2]. So the correct form would be "in college campis".
So in my opinion he could argue "campus" was now an English word and use say "campuses" in the English fashion, or go Latin all the way.
Not all Latin words ending with -us is -i in plural. All 4th declination nouns have -us in plural as well. E.g. manus
[1] Ablative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_case#Latin
[2] Campus is second declination: http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?campus
"he, who has quotes in his signature, is a douche" - unknown.
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.
Have you heard ThruYOU? That might change your mind.
The works you see by the same author released by seperate companies are in the public domain.
Anyone can print the original words of Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte, Dumas. Anything publisher specific (layout, annotations, et cetera) is exclusive to that publisher. The same goes with compositions. Anyone can record works by Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, as the sheetmusic is in the public domain, but whoever releases it is whoever cut the recording deal with the orchestra.
That's because the performance recording is copyrighted, not the source material itself. Subtle, but important, difference.
RTFA
No copyrights are being terminated, only the assignment of them to the recording labels is being terminated. The copyrights will revert to the original authors/composers/recordists (if the proper paperwork is filed)
You told me nothing I didn't already know. I'm curious how you know what I don't know? Can you read minds?
You will note that even in the days of the original US Copyright Act, if someone publishes a work and then immediately dies, their estate will still get proceeds from that work.
I know. When you can explain to me how that encourages people to create, then you'll have argued for its constitutionality. Short of someone creating works after being found to be terminally ill, I can't see how it would have any bearing at all on promoting the arts and sciences.
Additionally, the whole point of copyright *was* to create a Constitutional artificial monopoly.
You are both right, and 100% wrong. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The "point" as you put it, is to promote the progress of society by getting works into the public domain. Period. That's the point. The "how" is what you are stating is the "point." Personally, I see the word "point" as being synonymous with "goal." The goal of copyright is most definately not to create monopolies. That's the means to the end. The point, the goal is to promote art and science. If copyright doesn't achieve that goal, then it is unconstitutional/illegal.
You need to do more research on the history of copyright, as you apparently lack knowledge in the area.
A difference in opinion doesn't mean I don't understand. I understand your point, and think you are wrong. You are so blindly sure of yourself, you assume that I don't understand because if I did I could only think like you. That's not the way it works. I understand the context. And I disagree with you. Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution, rather than go off what the copyright holders and those who've taken direct payments from them think about it.
Learn to love Alaska
Uh, yeah, they do deserve it. Arkham House was created by August Derleth, who was a friend of HP Lovecraft, and was a more financially successful writer. He didn't do it to make money, in fact he said (in 1970)"[T]he fact is that in no single year since its founding have the earnings of Arkham House met the expenses, so that it has been necessary for my personal earnings to shore up Arkham House finances."