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."

Comments

Nothing to see here, move on

[lordmetroid]

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.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[hedwards]

This is the next best thing to the work going to the public domain. All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.

I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[perlchild]

I don't see how this is bad either. As for publishers... If they really feared this, they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract? YUP!

Oh wait you mean they wouldn't have made so much money off the artists? What? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it wasn't your money?

Hopefully, in ten years, the RIAA member companies will exit the music business, or be bankrupt. If you work for them, please find other work now. I'm so against them getting a bailout then.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[b4upoo]

Sadly the term publisher masks a host of leeches that feed upon the artists and the public. In essence if you get a contract you can subcontract everything and simply sit back and get a free lunch.
                      Going back in time a bit the publishers had to hire a scribe as an employee to prepare the original and then print it and issue it themselves. Those days are long gone. Today even the big name artists often gain nothing at all from record production but make their entire living from in person appearances and the sale of T shirts and other gimmicks.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[BarryJacobsen]

If we buy only works with reasonable term lengths, then long copyright terms will die.

I know, right! I mean, I just heard some teenage girls talking about how they wanted to buy this new Taylor Swift album, but weren't sure of her stance on intellectual property rights and copyright term retention so they didn't feel comfortable buying it as it would send the wrong message to the recording industry and OMG Billy just bought it, I wonder if I buy it he'll think I'm cool!

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[oldspewey]

The difference is that if the Eagles decide to be greedy about their intellectual property, it puts me in the position of having to reconsider my desire to own Eagles music. If Sony entertainment decides to be greedy about "their" intellectual property, it puts me in the position of having to reconsider my desire to own the music of several dozen artists.

If the Eagles want to dig their own grave, that's their prerogative.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[m.ducharme]

Incidentally, their concerts are probably under-priced, not over-priced. Long line-ups, same-day sellouts, and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets. You might not think the tickets, merch, etc are worth the prices they charge, but clearly other fans do, and there's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[commodore64_love]

When either power or money becomes concentrated, the people's liberty shrinks. I'd only go after the the megacorps on your list. Also 35 years is too long. That exceeds the lifetime of many artists (from the time they wrote the song to when they die). Look at the Beatles. Many of them died before the thirty-five year timespan ended, and that's just not right.

14 years (Original 1790 Act) would be better.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[TheLink]

Exactly.

That's why I find it really funny how some people can think that voting doesn't work (voters can't influence Governments to do the right thing), but at the same time think that people can vote with their wallets (influence companies to do the right thing)...

Voting doesn't work if there are too many stupid/ignorant voters. Whether it's voting with wallets or with ballot boxes.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Dotren]

Valid point and it's a tricky argument. Obviously it is nice to be able to take care of your family in the event of a tragic situation occurring.

How about the estate gets the copyright for the duration of the original copyright? Lets use the 14 year copyright the GP mentioned.. if the artist dies ant there are still 9 years left on the copyright then the estate could retain the copyright for 9 years. If there is only 5 months left then the estate only gets the remaining 5 months.

This way, the copyright is honored to it's entirety and the estate benefits, assuming the copyright hasn't expired already. True, it would suck if the copyright only had a month left on it and the holder died and didn't leave much for his/her estate but that could be chalked up to bad planning (for emergencies) as the copyright has already payed out as much as it was ever going to.

Much of anything more, I'm afraid, could be easily abused (as it has been already). We could use the argument that there should be an extension so the family can continue being supported... but then what if a corporation gets the copyright.. just think of all the people working at the corporation and their families....

Copyright should not be a retirement plan.. not for the artist and not for their estates or corporations.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[smallfries]

it sounds like you ... care about any copyright protection they have

Do you see what selective quoting is capable of? Kind of like how you removed the section about him being happy to pay directly for their copyrighted works....

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Scrameustache]

All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles

That depends, are they theoretically offering quality MP3/Ogg/whatever, or is it gonna be RealMedia DRMd crap? Because one of these things is not like the other.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[mweather]

Too young? We're talking 35 years. Unless he was writing as an infant, you're looking at a minimum age of ~50 if he died after the copyright expires. Since when is 50 "too young"? If, at 50, you haven't provided for your family in case you die, you probably never will. If in 35 years of marketing your creation you can't make it worth your while, it never will be worth your while.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Omestes]

So artists are the only ones to get a government enforced and mandated estate? When I, or anyone else who isn't dealing with eternal copyrights, die my estate will consist of my assets and savings, minus debt. When an "artist" dies, their estate is assets and savings, plus a government mandated money tree. There is nothing saying "artists" can save up money and leave it to their children just like the rest of us. I don't see why "saving money" is an onus that "artists" should be saved from?

Also, this is a bit of a misnomer, since most of these "artists" copyrights are not making money for their children, they are making money (for all eternity) for large corporations that had nothing to do with creating music in the first place.

Does Arkham House (for example) really deserve to have the rights (and thus get a cut) of most of H.P. Lovecrafts works? Why the hell did they do to deserve such an eternal money maker?

Personally I think copyright should be limited to the life of the "artist", and completely non-transferable. And if you opt out of the non-transferable bit, it should be a flat, non-renewable, 30 years. I know this will never happen, so in the spirit of compromise I like the idea of a 15 year copyright, with one free extension, and after that all extensions cost a rising amount of money (based on the market value of the property).

We forget that copyright was not created (at least in the US) for the good of the artist, but for the good of the public.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

it sounds like you ... care about any copyright protection they have

Do you see what selective quoting is capable of? Kind of like how you removed the section about him being happy to pay directly for their copyrighted works....

THere's a huge gap between saying "I will pay for this music if I like who is selling it, otherwise I shall take it." and saying "I do not like who is selling this music, therefore I shall do without."

Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Knara]

Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.

QFT. The alternative to buying music is not "I take it anyway because I want it, BUT I RESPECT COPYRIGHT AND ARTISTS". It's "I didn't buy it because I don't like it."

The folks who espouse the former are just rationalizing their desire for free stuff, but hedging their bets on peoples' perception of them by saying "but I respect the artists, it's just those mean record labels!"

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Nerdposeur]

If you buy music as an investment, it's likely that you're also buying stuff that never becomes valuable. What's your average return rate? Is it better than the stock market? If so, I salute you.

In any case, this is irrelevant to most people, who buy music to listen to, not to resell.

Good

[betterunixthanunix]

Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.

Re:Good

[pwfffff]

"The cost goes into marketing the band, producing music videos, large international tours, studio engineers. You've got to make millions of CDs and distribute them internationally. A graphic artist has to make the cover. Photography of the band."

Most of that crap is unnecessary and is simply there to fuel the fattened industry. The way I see it, most of the marketing is only there to recoup the cost from, well, most of their marketing. Do you honestly think that fans would know or care if the pictures on their favorite bands website weren't the result of a $10,000 photo shoot, but were instead taken by fans at a concert and uploaded to Myspace?

I just find it really hard to believe that if Miley Cyrus were to record a track on her own, upload it to her blog, and sell an unencumbered version of it for $1, she would make no profit. That cuts out graphic artists, distributors, agents, CEOs, secretaries, RIAA lawyers, brick and mortar stores, promotion companies, and marketers, and yet the product is the same.

So all you've proven is that there is lots of money in the industry. You haven't defended it being there, and you haven't even really argued against the parent's point which was that this money isn't being used to improve the product. Well, actually, I suppose that only holds true if you assume that the product of the music industry is music.

So in a way I guess you HAVE argued your point, but only by pointing out that the point of the music industry isn't to produce music. And that in turn kind of proves the parent's overall point, which was that this money (and really this industry) doesn't deserve to be there.

tl;dr Right now the RIAA doesn't serve to produce better music, more music, or even insightful, innovative, and interesting music; it simply uses its resources to convince stupid people to buy their crap. The 'greed' part comes when they pretend that they're necessary.

To the overpaid marketer in the corner going 'But that's my JOB you're talking about!': I don't give a shit; get a real job you manipulative parasite.

Re:Good

[Lord Dreamshaper]

I just find it really hard to believe that if Miley Cyrus were to record a track on her own, upload it to her blog, and sell an unencumbered version of it for $1, she would make no profit

Sure...and how much money did they have to spend to make Miley into an OMG MUST HAVE!!!!1!1!! "talent"? Looking around, I don't see a lot of future Led Zepellins, Doors, Pink Floyds or around...there's an overwhelming amount of money wasted in foisting crap on us, but it's easier (and therefore cheaper) to manufacture an image than to find, nuture & promote a legit talent. This system is corrupt and broken, & it does rape the artists, but it *would* require significant investment by the labels even if were run honestly.

Interesting times

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Will there be a kaboom?

[R2.0]

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.

Re:Will there be a kaboom?

[R2.0]

Way to miss the point. EVERYTHING in your post is based on the idea that "copyright" is something innate or profound, existing outside of a legal structure. It is not. Copyright exists ONLY within a legal structure that decrees it so. The point of copyright is to encourage the creative arts by granting the creator a monopoly for a limited time, after that point others may use that art. Without that, and artist HAS NO RIGHTS to the product of their work. If you write and perform a song, what stops another musician from performing the same song the next night? Nothing except a law. Copyright is a mercantilist replacement for aristocratic patronage - it allows artists to make money within a capitalist system. But that's ALL it is.

I am not in favor of abolishing copyright - I believe, in the main, it does what it is intended to do. But the current terms of copyright are so outrageous as to encourage this bizarre idea of "ownership" of something that DOESN'T EXIST. I'm sure the Eagles worked their asses off thirty years ago to create that song, and I believe they should have been compensated for it. Then. and for some period of time thereafter. But thirty years later? I believe it is bad public policy, which is the only place that this "right" exists.

Re:Will there be a kaboom?

[DavidTC]

No. That's not the same thing.

Physical ownership exists because because there is only one of each thing, and only one person can use it at one time.

So a government comes along and says 'This is yours, even if you aren't possessing it', e.g., if you set it down for a second. Or it's what you sleep on.

Possession is, if you will, an inherent property of the universe. Everything that exists can have zero or one people in control of it. 'Property ownership' is just a way to continue 'possession' without actually possessing it, because, frankly, no one wants to carry around all their stuff all the time.

Land ownership is loosely related. It started with the concept that part of the ground, where you planted something or built a shelter, was yours. Admittedly, it's expanded past that point, and there have actually been quite a few people who want to 'correct' this back by taking land that no one's done anything with away from the owner.

Even really indirect ownership, like stock ownership, is still 'There is something that exists, and control over that thing needs to be decided, as only one person can actually 'control' it.'. The thing that exists is the physical assets of the company, and the control is an amazingly indirect mess, but it's still there in principle.

Compare to copyright, which doesn't have anything to do with possession or things that actually exist and can be controlled. Copyright is the ability to stop other people from doing things with their own stuff, like singing a song with their own mouth.

That's why people have ownership of a copyright, not ownership of a song. You can't actually own a sound pattern, that is not property that actually exists. You can, however, own the government-issued right to stop other people from replicating that pattern it.

Re:Awesome

[Rogerborg]

What was Written can be Unwritten. Watch for a rider being slipped through on the Protecting Freedom, Goodness and Innocent Children Act 2010. Congress has gotten better at this since the last time they got caught boning creatives over Work For Hire.

Making the summary not completely backwards

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:Someone please explain

[Dr. Evil]

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?

Re:Someone please explain

[DMiax]

But a copyright tranfer for 35 years is less valuable than a 75 years one. By simple fairness, if you change the terms of the deal you should allow to renegotiate. And sure as hell if the terms will ever be reduced it will not apply to closed deals.

Re:Its time to think about the future, not the pas

[crmarvin42]

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.