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 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
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?"
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!
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
The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me. I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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?
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).
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).
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
The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me. I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.
Please listen to some Skinny Puppy from the 80s, the Plunderphonics album, the collective works of Duran Duran Duran*, etc. Sampling in the right hands is a very effective musical element. Sadly that sort of work isn't done very often anymore, because of the legal barriers that have been created.
* not Duran Duran, although I like their music too.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
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 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
... 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.
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.
Have you heard ThruYOU? That might change your mind.
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.
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.
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
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.