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

Awesome

[SirGarlon]

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.

Tables turned

[mr_gorkajuice]

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"

What I find particularly interesting about this...

[jimicus]

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....

Effect on games, etc.?

[Jared555]

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?

Re:What I find particularly interesting about this

[AP31R0N]

Speaking of Courtney Love:

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[pigphish]

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.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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.

Let me add a factoid:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good

[i_ate_god]

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.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Misch]

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.

Re:Nothing to see here, move on

[Khyber]

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.