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."
First play
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.
Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.
Palm trees and 8
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!
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
will we see some more innovative sampling, legal enough to go mainstream again?
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?"
Musicians should make music because they work for the people. I think it all comes down to the corrosive influence of Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal sympathies on the couscousness of our generation. Why can't I eat an orange in peace? Because the IRS bought it with their ray guns!
I see I was not the only person chosen to bring back balance. What's the frequency, Kenneth?
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.'"
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.
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!
This is a disaster! Record labels will have to find some way of making people pay them for newer content!
Now, do you reckon they'll make the newer content worth hearing, or do you reckon they'll bribe lawmakers to force us to pay for it whether we listen to it or not (blank media taxation and the like)?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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"
Yes, the Latin plural of campus is campi.
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?
some character known as the Banana Boy is planning to distribute "annotated" copies of that book in college campuses
Maybe some people don't believe in evolution because it hasn't happened to them yet? If I seem some one who looks like a neanderthal tossing around poop and copies of a book they dont' understand, I'll steer clear of them. (I would also keep away from someone with just the poop.)
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.
I am officially gone from
Goodbye, record labels.
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!
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!
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?
Musicians work for the people??? What, are they civil servants now?
I'm not volunteering to run it, mind you, but this calls for a campaign directed at the artists, to encourage them to get out from underneath the RIAA's thumb. Extol the merits of Creative Commons, of self-publishing, etc. Set up a website keeping track of those artists who've reclaimed their copyright, and cheer with each new name. It looks like there is a time limit on this, and some of the artists might not hear about it or might not think it's important.
It won't work on everyone, and some artists might be just as bad or worse than the RIAA, but overall the more copyrights the RIAA loses, the better it will be for everyone (except them).
And I look forward to seeing the case conclude by the end of my lifetime.
May the Maths Be with you!
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).
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.
It won't be cheaper because the stations will have to deal with thousands of individual artists instead of a handful of record companies. The administrative overhead will make it no longer worth the effort.
I'm sure they'll license the songs they absolutely can't do without (e.g. Hotel California will still be on the radio), but they won't bother with the rest.
On the other hand, maybe Obama will come to the record companies rescue, and alter the law in some fast-track legislation.
I'm no American, but isn't it Congress that makes laws, not the President?
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Help me here someone: So if an artist exercises the right to own their music again, who gets the revenues for physical sales of material already on shelves? Surely using the RIAA logic, it's the music and not the media that is governed by copyright? Maybe the volume is too low to consider, but there's a lot of back catalogue stuff out there.
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?
No. You sold the copyright. Period.
If you want control over your copyright in the future, then don't sell it.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Afaict radio stations nearly always pay for the right to air music through thier countries compulsary licensing body anyway so I doubt this will have any impact on them either way.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
arch liberals Don Henley and Babs scream "GIVE ME MY MONEY...." That's too funny.
Since a liberal is someone who wants personal freedoms protected but business regulated, I don't get the joke.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hm couscous...tasty!
Hold my beer and watch this!
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
Houston? We have chickens, and it looks like they are coming home to roost.
Karma is such a fun toy.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Musician work for the people who enjoy music. They shouldn't be whoring themselves to corporate America, which only rapes the musicians AND the music lovers.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Help me here someone: So if an artist exercises the right to own their music again, who gets the revenues for physical sales of material already on shelves? Surely using the RIAA logic, it's the music and not the media that is governed by copyright?
Maybe the volume is too low to consider, but there's a lot of back catalogue stuff out there.
Watch for quick and non-apologetic hypocritical statements from the industry. And as another poster commented, keep an eye out for stealth changes in copyright law.
This story makes me want to jump and shout Hallelujah that copyright law is working for the right people for once. But knowing how far in control the corporates are of the government (especially the legislature) right now tempers my glee.
When making a statement (young musicians), it is usually proper to list some examples... oh wait, you didn't say TALENTED YOUNG MUSICIANS, whew...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Lets have a round of applause for music. It's going to escape its captors , the music industry, when they die.
Musicians need an industry like fish need bicycles. Musicians will thrive on their own and actually make some money.
Don't get me wrong, the way we find music is going to change. Change is good. No one with any brains will copyright music unless it's GPL like.
Musicians can still get paid for commercial use or just toss it to the world. Revenues from touring will go to the band instead of thieving middlemen and the band can pay for whatever services they require,pocketing the rest.
Quality? Let's think about what happens to art when it's industrialized. You get mass produced paintings to hang in trailer houses, yet there are still talented artists selling their unique paintings individually worldwide. Here the industry is largely ignored because talented artists haven't been made to rely on an industry or face obscurity.
So, people of the world, keep on doin what you can to kill the music industry, soon something wonderful is going to happen.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
If they overprice their wares, their market will find substitutes, either legal or illegal, elsewhere. And if they stupidly decide that they want to start suing file sharers, they are in a much worse position than RIAA, since RIAA saves tons of money by using a single contracted "media investigator", and by sharing expert witnesses and other info between all of their legal cases.
IANAL, I'd that the usage rights would continue under whatever contract was made for them, similar to other situations where a company has sold a resource or rights to it, and then the ownership of the company itself changed.
One theory is that exists so the artist can get government protection of their work for a time, and in return work is entered into public domain when the time expires.
By that theory, my tax dollars (FBI, courts, etc) are used to protect your work for a set amount of time and I do have the right to demand that your works are released when the time expires.
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In the future bands will refer to this as the "old musicians retirement fund"
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.
Technically you are correct. But when one party controls both houses and has the president, Congress will pass whatever non-controversial bills the president proposes.
And this would be non-controversial - a vast majority of the big campaign contributors would support it.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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.
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.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
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
I would argue that musicians work for whatever they want to work for. Some do it for the prestige, some do it for the money, some do it just for the sake of making music. They don't work for the public, they may only attempt to please the public. They may work for a label that's controlling or for one that allows creative freedom, again, it's not for the public. And as for the rant on corperate america, there are music companies in other countries that exist solely for profit, and there are companies in america that aim to allow creative freedom. please educate yourself before you start with the broad statements again.
I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], 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.
In his defense, the summary did say that the copyrights were expiring. So this is a case of horribly wrong summary.
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.
The deal hasn't changed. The deal was a certain amount of money for a current copyright. Period. If, down the road, copyright length gets extended, well that's just a bonus for anyone who holds a copyright. But once you've sold an item for an agreed upon price, the deal is done. If the item sold becomes more valuable after the sale, well, that's the risk anyone takes when selling an item.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
The article isn't clear on the specifics, but this write-up explains it well.
It's the expectation that after 35 years, it would be contributed to society, and not locked in some money making vault long after you're dead. To me, that's a renegotiation of the contract.
It's the fault of the government for making unilateral retroactive copyright changes.
... of Lola vs. Powerman and The Money-Go-Round!
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.
The artists and songwriters are the only ones getting paid for music on the radio. The stations pay ASCAP/BMI but pay nothing to the labels. In fact the labels often pay the stations to play their music (payola), but that's more TOP40 then oldies/classic rock.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
I agree that yours is a reasonable point of view. I rest my case based on my interpretation of the copyright law from a non-lawyer POV, aka my ramblings. Read at your own peril.
The copyright is granted by the state for a limited number of years. The duration is, I would say, established at this point. When the author signed it away he knew it was going to last a fixed time. What did he sign away "the whole copyright I was granted" or "the 35 years of copyright I was granted". At the time there was no difference, so he is given the opportunity to specify now.
I will partially reiterate, to clarify, using a car. The state grants you a car for your artistic merits, you sell it. The state decides you also deserve a sound system for your car. Who gets it, you or the current owner of the car?
I think it is unclear, thus the option to renegotiate.
Wow, that was extremely insightful/informative even after 9 years. Thanks for posting the link.
I would be seriously surprised if the music industry didn't see this one coming and isn't busy trying to avoid losing copyright grants. Maybe they even simply can't ovoid losing grants for those cases where the artist is deceased. It's very good that those companies lose copyright grants: material can now be archived and used for personal use or the sake of studying history.
I expect to see extreme lobbying and a new copyright amendment (possibly to a "must-pass" military spending bill) tabled shortly that removes this restriction. Ironically, it will be presented as "helping the poor artists" who are being "destroyed by piracy".
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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.
I'm really bad at math, but even I can figure 1978 + 35 = 2013.
Since a liberal is someone who wants personal freedoms protected but business regulated, I don't get the joke.
Both tend to be people who campaign on policies about the excesses of the rich and for redistribution of wealth. They argue that those who have money and seek it are somehow sinning, and yet, when it comes to their stack, they are just like any oil company.
This is my sig.
I'm sure they'll license the songs they absolutely can't do without (e.g. Hotel California will still be on the radio), but they won't bother with the rest.
A good start... now how do we get rid of Hotel California too?
(Sorry, I just Hate the fuckin' Eagles, maaaaaan</Dude>
I would argue that musicians work for whatever they want to work for. Some do it for the prestige, some do it for the money, some do it just for the sake of making music.
I can only speak for myself here...
But I did it all for the nookie.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Okay, now I'm puzzled. I was aware of the 56 year issue, because of the heirs of Jerry Siegel reclaiming the copyrights to Superboy and Superman. The 56 year one has a clear justification: the copyright term was 56 years, but new laws added extra time to the copyright past that. The creator originally thought he was just selling the copyright for 56 years, so the extra time that we added could just as well go to him as to the guys he sold it to.
But where's this 35 years for works after 1978 coming from? I mean, it's there in the law, but it's not obvious where it's coming from.
This isn't a time bomb, fellows, it's a love bomb. Quit worrying and learn to love it.
Bad analogy, adding a sound system alters the state of the car. An alternative comparison may be leasehold of a property. You can buy a lease on a property, resell the lease to others, but once it runs out then you have to renegotiate a new one with the original owner. This analogy works quite well, as record companies or individuals often purchase the remaining copyright to back catalogs of artists. The length of the lease directly affects the value of the lease. In my opinion it is clear the length of the lease should not be alterable without consent of the owner.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Yeah, yeah, whatever. The central issue is copyright law. Historically, whatever an individual or corporation creates is eventually coopted into the public domain. The central question is, when should that happen? Should copyright entitle someone to a monopoly on his idea for five years, ten years, 15 years, or 20 years? Bear in mind - NO SANE COPYRIGHT was ever intended to entitle an author to a steady income for generations to come. Only since corporations came into the picture have copyrights been extended again and again. Corporations have no "life expectancy" comparable to an individual. In effect, the entire reasoning for a copyright has been preempted by the corporations. The goal is to have a copyright continue into perpetuity, so that those corporate fatcats can continue cashing checks forever.
Rant on corporate America? I didn't - yet. Would you really like me to get started on one? Perhaps you are completely unaware of the recent financial meltdown, due to unbridled greed? Maybe you're not up to date on banking schemes that are raising the interest rates on loans that have been outstanding for years? Oh man, you really don't want to get me started on a real rant.
But, back to those artists. Yes, they work for people. No matter whether the money is channeled through a corporation or not, the PEOPLE who like their music pay them. What the people don't like, they don't pay for, and what the people like, they will pay for. It's really that simple. And all of those creative works are supposed to belong to the people, eventually.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
People who sell a copyright, shouldn't have a say in how the law changes?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether they should have a say in what happens with the sold item after it has been sold. Of course they should have a say in changes to the law.
You're right, he sold copyright for however long the term happens to be or changes to.
No, he didn't sell it "for however long the term happens to be or changes to", he simply sold it. Period. There is no time length in a sold item. If I sell you a house, I'm not selling a house for X years, I'm selling a house. Period. No matter how long I anticipate the house will remain standing. If you want a time limit on it, then license it, not sell it.
If you're saying he shouldn't be allowed to complain about what Congress does, then seriously: fuck you, commie
This was actually one of the funniest comments I've read on Slashdot in a while.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
However, in this case, if there's physical media out there, the retailers have already paid the wholesaler for the copies of the CDs. That money is already in the system, so to speak.
Who got the money from that depends on who wrote the song, what the contract between the artist(s) and the label states, and (usually) how much money has previously been made by that particular creative work.
Most of those typically currently labeled as liberals and conservatives are actually populists. The self-applied labels and those of corporate media don't change their actual tendencies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
musicians finally getting their music back -- its about frickin time...
Welcome to slashdot, where headlines and summaries are routinely wrong. Your userid # shows me you have no excuse for not knowing that.
Musicians work for the people??? What, are they civil servants now?
Yes, I know what you meant, but isn't everyone who gets paid ultimately working for the people, at least in the most liberal interpretation of that phrase? Even that motivational speaker who reminds me of Larry the Cable Guy encourages entrepreneurs and business people to have the mindset of "serving others"? And he's pretty conservative, just like Jesus told us to be.
(p.s. Thanks google: Larry Winget. Quote:
"Money is the result of serving people well. Serving people is an honorable thing. Money is the result of hard work. Hard work is honorable. Having money is a wonderful thing in your life. It pays for college for your kids. It pays for healthcare when you and the people you love get sick. It takes care of your mom and dad when they get old and need help. It feeds the homeless and helps those who are less fortunate. It pays your taxes to build roads and provide fire and police protection. It is to be appreciated, saved, invested, and ENJOYED. ")
I am not a crackpot.
I did it all for the cookie.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
One (Lennon) died before the 35 years was up. Another (Harrison) died after the 35 year window (The Beatles, as most people define them, formed in 1962 George Harrison died in 2001). Even if you only go by who wrote the songs, Harrison (who had a song on Help-1965) still exceeds the 35 year window.
Yeah, obviously I will take you at your word that your nick is a reflection of your true nature AND that you're being truthful. Look at me go!
I don't need to convince you. You need to convince the US Congress and SCOTUS that it should be different than it is now. I happen to agree with them.
Oh noes, the records industry might have to let the ORIGINAL CREATORS have the rights to THEIR OWN WORK again! The sky is falling, whatever shall we do? I know, let's whine to Congress that we'll die if we can't continue ripping off musicians for all eternity! /sarcasm off
So musicians are finally getting what every sensible writer has written into his contract from the get-go--rights revert to the author after X years, or Y years out-of-print? Dang, I can see where music company accountants might be feeling the pain... they might actually have to re-negotiate to pay the creators what their copyrights are worth... and now these guys are big enough they can hire agents and lawyers that negotiate less one-sided contracts.
I feel so bad for the music companies, I really do. That's why I'm laughing so hard at this. Geez, did Wired really need to publish a one-sided article obviously written by an RIAA lawyer?
---dragoness
To buy in bulk and pass along (some of) your bulk discount.
But not the ridiculous money cow they have now.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Like any tool, it can be used well, it could be used badly.
Not (yet?) into 80s rap, but I do have some music that makes good use of samples.
K. Flay's "MASHed Potatoes" comes to mind, but it happens to use all (as far as I can tell) recent samples what wouldn't be affected by this
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The big labels should act a bit like being part of a cooperative. You grant them a share of profits, and they do the work of marketing, distribution, and so forth. Going with smaller non-name labels really hurts that, as it means the musician has to be much more active in the other parts the process. So instead of being an artist, they have to be artist plus promoter plus business manager. The same model works with visual arts (let a studio market, sell and license your paintings), and even farming (sell to Sunkist and Sun-maid coops).
This breaks down when the big labels treat the artists as workers-for-hire rather than partners.
You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass
Indeed, that does appear to happen. From TFA:
"This might sound familiar, because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs — right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs."
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
And the extra money should go to the public, since it's the public domain that's losing out from the extensions, not the artist.
it's Eaglesband.com, not eagles.com. This was an error in the wired article, since corrected on their site.
Too bad films are works-for-hire, else we'd be only eight years away from switched copyright on Dr. Strangelove.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
An independent artist I can think of right away if Jonathan Coulton. Then I think of the song 'Sell Out' by Reel Big Fish and find myself lost.
No, he didn't sell it "for however long the term happens to be or changes to", he simply sold it. Period.
Actually, it's not a sale. It's an assignment. The copyright holder assigned his interest for a lump sum, usually to a publisher, with the mutual understanding that the interest would expire in a period of years.
The amount paid for that assignment is based on a discounted rate of future projected earnings, with termination at a particular time. The creator also assigned the work with the understanding that it would enter the public domain after that time.
A copyright can be sold, but this isn't that.
If I sell you a house, I'm not selling a house for X years, I'm selling a house. Period.
A house does not typically have a term. However, individuals that are granted life estates in property are permitted to sell that. Again, this is an assignment of interest. The purchaser of the life estate does not own the house; s/he owns the use of the house until the life estate ends, at which time it reverts to the designated successor.
In the case of copyright assignment, the buyer can only purchase the assignment; the public domain holds the reversionary interest
If you really want to see a dust-up, wait until 2012 - only three years from now. In 2012 it will be fifty years since the release of "Love Me Do", the first single by The Beatles (a Liverpool rock band. You may have heard of them.)
and I hate the fu*king Eagles man!
Puss or Poos... I don't know which is more disturbing
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
There's a nice troll, now go back under your rock.
Maybe the record labels have such a corner on the market that they can squeeze out the independent musicians who would rather not sell their souls?
Copyright law is a compromise: A temporary restriction of our rights of free speech, with the intent of encouraging creative works. Anything from the 50's, 60's and 70's should be in the public domain. Lengthy copyright law robs from the public domain (which is, in essence, our culture) to grant wealth. Under current copyright law, most of that wealth gets granted to oligarchists who perform little useful function. That artists are taking back their copyrights and publishing themselves is positive, in that at least the artists are reaping the rewards of their labors rather than layers and accountants, but it's bad in that the work is more than 20 years old and belongs in the public domain.
Technological innovation in dissemination of information, and reduced costs in distribution, change the cost benefit ration of copyright law, which means we should be shrinking the power and length of copyright law. Unfortunately the oligarchists have very effective lobbies, and benefit from the ignorance of people like you, who have strong opinions despite knowing nothing about the issue, and are unable to value anything using any yardstick other than sums of financial transactions.
On the other hand, having older artists take back their copyrights might be a good thing. Perhaps in the long run it will weaken the copyright oligarchists, eventually allowing society's voice to be heard, as well as that of the expensive lobbyists.
If Latin declension applies then you would have to use it in the singular as well, eg. "I am in the campo".
As for other declensions with -us, there is:
genus -> genera
litus -> litora
manus -> manus
I think that's it, although I can't think of any Latin words in English that follow those last two patterns (apparatus, pl. apparatus seems like it might fit into the fourth but Wiktionary says it's from a first/second declension adjective).
As of 2005, the "big four" music groups control about 70% of the world music market, and about 80% of the United States music market.
This would seem to indicate that it is still possible for musicians to operate without being represented by the "Big 4". That's not an insignificant number of musicians that did not sell their soul.
There is no reason why a musician has to try for the big time other than greed, which we all suffer from, but is not actually an excuse.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I did it all for my bookie... I was in deep, deep man. And they threatened the jewels.
There are already services out there that will put your music on multiple digital retailers. cdbaby is an example that often comes up here.
What I suspect will happen in many cases though is that authors will use the threat of revoking the rights as leverage to get a better deal out of the major labels (in the same way that artists that manage to stay relavent long enough to complete thier first record deal and start a second get a much better deal on thier second).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I personally don't respect copyright as it is. It no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It allows middlemen to maintain control of the market and to suck up profits that belong to the artists. They control what is accepted as popular (think radio play) and tend to generally harm the progress of the useful arts.
It now becomes clear that he IS, in fact, in support of copyright, just not the way it has been contorted. It has a stated purpose that is continually ignored by Disney/congress. You are right there is a huge gap here.
I'd love to see a site called Artist P.O's Nothing but the addresses of the people that deserve the continuing profits. The labels perform a service for the artist. blah, blah, rant, yawn something about inequitable contracts. blah, blah, rant rant.
When an officer of the law breaks the law they are no longer acting as an officer of the law and need to be dealt with a
Eagles music should not require any copyright protection beyond that afforded to other forms of white noise. Very few forms of noise are whiter.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!