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 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.
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?
Absolutely not at all bad. But interesting nevertheless, so something to see here indeed.
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!
Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.
Or they could look to the future and treat new/current artists so well that in 35 years, those artists don't want (like it's not in their best interest) to revoke the copyright ownership from the labels.
I get a big kick out of watching record execs greedily line their own pockets at the expense of destroying music all while doing absolutely nothing. It's no secret and it's not a recent development. Compare the music industry to something more efficient like the microchip industry. Ignore the market differences for a second and think about what happens in the silicon valley or Taiwan or South Korea when someone hits on something big. What happens? Yes, people get paid and they end up with nicer stuff but a lot of that money gets fed back into the system in R&D or an expansion of workers. It pays to expand. Now look at the music industry. A label signs a huge act, the record goes multi-platinum. The artists get some amount but there are these large pools where money comes to rest and stops working for everyone. These are the record executives and RIAA at large. They're different than your average CEO because they are probably making more and they don't even have several thousand people working under them that they have to appease. They just have bands.
So where is the equivalent of R&D or expansion of workers in the music industry? Why is it that bands don't get paid by a record company until they sign a label? Why aren't funds re-invested back into the system that is such a cash cow for these executives? If these executives treated their artists better and really really devoted a lot of time and money towards developing the bands and offering non-contractual small funds to fledgling bands instead of putting all that money in their pocket, then I think the music industry would be in a much much better state right now. Right now, it sucks to be an artist. It's just not a financial option unless you're Bob Dylan or Shakira.
Stop screwing the artists and the fans and you won't find yourself in a shady situation relying on lawyers to find a loophole around legal matters.
My work here is dung.
This is bad because the Eagles may be even more greedy than the record companies. They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour and probably wouldn't mind when selling their wares.
Actually, there's something very interesting to see here. This is may be the first time that early termination of copyrights has been viewed as a viable option for artists, and for consumers. If artists are prepared to agree to terminate their copyrights early, we can make our choices based on how long artists will hold their creations. We can choose how long we have to wait before redistributing. Before, it was an option between no time at all, or some undetermined amount of time, at least 75 years post creation.
If we buy only works with reasonable term lengths, then long copyright terms will die.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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.
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.
People seem to forget in this whole debate that the actual process of making an album, and then getting it heard through all the noise is expensive, whether you're part of a major label, an indie label, or on you own. It costs thousands of dollars to record, produce, and engineer an album. Then once you have that, how do you get people to listen to it? Throwing up mp3s on your website with a for sale sign won't garner much attention at all. Throwing your mp3s out there for free on torrent trackers won't garner much attention either.
So yes, money does move around the industry. The bigger the band, the more people are involved in its success. Stage hands, road crew, bus driver, marketing and advertisement agencies, promotion companies, distributors, brick & mortar stores, video crews, for-hire musicians to add additional tracks (like hiring an orchestra).
Now, because all this money is going to all sorts of different people, to say that it's just the RIAA being greedy is a little naive. These labels have tonnes of money that I'm willing to bet that other companies in this industry tried a little extortion of their own. HMV bumping up stocking prices for major labels for example.
So this money has to be reinvested into the system as people raise their prices, and bands/labels try to out-glam each other with ever more extravagant productions.
I'm not pro RIAA, nor do I think the whole industry is fair at all, but it's important to understand what actually goes on before anyone thinks there is a solution.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
... of Lola vs. Powerman and The Money-Go-Round!
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.
Ever hear of an estate? Where the assets, such as copyright grants, have value which the deceased's will can direct to benefit the surviving family members? So a hard-working artist who dies too young can still take care of his family?
Part of the problem that came out of Eldred v. Ashcroft is that the Supreme Court (for some reason) found that the retroactive copyright term extension somehow induced content creators to create more works.
In reality, this is wrong. When you create a work, copyright attaches to the work. You follow the social contract, you know your work is protected for a certain period of time, and then it enters the public domain. The extension does nothing for what I might do in the present. The new social contract for new works might entice me to create new works, but the retroactive extension did nothing.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Possibly, however trying to wring every last cent out of their fans based on a simple supply/demand model might not work out too well in the long run. There are a lot more choices out there, so if the fans get the feeling they're just a bunch of dollar signs, and that the band is in it just for the money, demand might dry up. Keeping the price lower could keep demand higher by helping to sustain their popularity and keep the fans around longer.
Casca
This is why early music adopters rarely lose out.
I own all of the Eagles works, on vinyl, unopened.
Bet that would sell for a shit ton more money than any collection of remastered CDs or MP3s.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"whenever I hear Hotel California come on the radio it feels like someone is raping my eardrums."
Well then, turn the treble down FFS! It's supposed to be reminiscient of a harpsichord in the beginning of the song, of course the steel guitar fails miserably at that because there's just not enough internal room for sound development inside the small guitar body, so of course it will sound like that.
Also, that only sounds like that on the remastered/re-released Hotel California. On the original vinyl, the treble is much less powerful, so it sounds softer.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
How about the original copyright or 5 years, whichever is greater. So if the original, unextended copyright was set to expire in 3 months, the family could apply for the extention but would get only a 5 year extention. That gives the family plenty of time to arrange their finances (even enough time to get a degree and search for a job if that is necissary). I find that better than just saying tough tooties to the family.
On the other hand, ideally what I would like to see is sane limits to begin with. How about a single 20 year copyright. No extentions to worry about, no orphaned children. Also, legislate it such that if the length is extended by law in the future, the current rules apply for all works created up until that law passes. Lord knows the content owners would demand the reverse (if the length was shortened they would want to be grandfathered in with the old limit).
I understand the reasoning you have, but you are wrong. This has been discussed ad nauseam. You don't want to create a situation where artists living or dying has such a grand financial effect. Imagine if someone (say, a competitor) had a financial incentive to kill your top performing artist(s) and put you out of a business overnight? Suppose you sign a singer up for 5 albums and while they are working on their 5th album they are killed and their previous 4 albums that you had automatically lose their commercial value by going out of copyright? Really?
Your transferable but not renewable system makes sense, however.
People don't seem to have any clue that it might be possible to legislate that we must compensate an artist for using their work WITHOUT legislating that we are not permitted to copy or modify it. Compensation is a completely separate issue from control. It's just that people are so use to the two being tied together that they lack an imagination of a world where an artist is indeed paid but loses control over the work. At it's simplest, instead of suing over copyright, the artists should simply be allowed to sue to be compensated. That's a hell of a lot more natural than the current law.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer