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."
They're not going to like changing their tune.
>>>cord labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014
I predict a sudden explosion of disco on the oldies radio stations. They won't be able to play that music for free (since it belongs to the artists), but I bet it will be a lot cheaper than what the megacorps are asking.
On the other hand, maybe Obama will come to the record companies rescue, and alter the law in some fast-track legislation.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
He sold it for 35 years, so they get to KEEP it for 35 years.
No he didn't. He sold it. Period. You can't sell something for a period of time. If you sell it, it's sold.
He sold it with the belief that it would be in the public domain after 35 years, and then the rules changed. Oh well. That's life. He still sold it, and has no reason to complain about what happens to it after he sold it. Again, if he wanted to retain control, then he shouldn't have sold it.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
it is your duty to not ignore current copyright law, but to do your best to actively destroy it. current copyright law impoverishes us culturally with ridiculous restrictions on the flow of culture simply for the sake of creating a business model for a business which isn't even necessary. current copyright law was meant as a gentleman's agreement amongst large media players sipping mojitos in oak paneled rooms, never meant as a bully club against the general public
until such time that copyright provisions return to normalcy: 5-10 years of protection for the creators only, and until such time that publishers are rendered economically untenable, it is your duty as a moral person to not ignore copyright, but to do as much economic damage as possible to the parasitic businesses known as publishers
they were a necessary evil in the pre-internet world. in the internet world, publishers are simply evil, having been rendered redundant by simple technological progress
it is time to wipe publishers from the face of the earth with a prolonged campaign to reduce their financial inflows to zero
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it