Music Copyright War Looming

quarterbuck writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "When copyright law was revised in the mid-1970s, musicians, like creators of other works of art, were granted 'termination rights,' which allow them to regain control of their work after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. Recordings from 1978 are the first to fall under the purview of the law, but in a matter of months, hits from 1979, like 'The Long Run' by the Eagles and 'Bad Girls' by Donna Summer, will be in the same situation. ... 'We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,' said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of record labels. As the record companies see it, the master recordings belong to them in perpetuity, rather than to the artists who wrote and recorded the songs, because, the labels argue, the records are 'works for hire,' compilations created not by independent performers but by musicians who are, in essence, their employees."

Comments

It depends on contracts

[zget]

Unless the artists self-financed it and didn't make contracts with record labels, it basically is work for hire.

Lets take game series as examples - even if your studio created the game and the franchise, the IP rights to the name, characters etc belong to the publisher as they financed it and that was the deal made with the studio. Unless they make a deal with the publisher, they also cannot just leave and continue using that same name under another publisher. On the other hand, the publisher has the right to use the name even if they hire a new studio the make it. This is the case with Call of Duty series too. It's basically work for hire, and it's a decision creators make when thinking if they could finance it on their own or if they need a publisher to finance the initial creating part. Since publisher takes a risk, they also get to own the work done.

It's the same thing when you work for a software company as coder. You don't own the product or the code you made, as you were hired to do it for the company. If you want to keep it all to yourself (and also get larger rewards), you need to finance and handle all parts of it yourself.

Re:It depends on contracts

[WrongSizeGlass]

I think it all depends on how the contracts with the bands/musicians were worded. If they don't read as "works for hire" contracts, or the record companies only have distribution deals, then the RIAA bastards may be out of luck.

Re:It depends on contracts

[sesshomaru]

"Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects. "

In other words, the recording industry, when it is harmful to them, says, "They are independent artists" including loaning them money to make a recording that they then have to repay. However, when it's in their interest for the artists to be employees, they say, "Hey, it's work for hire, we own it."

This is why the people who make up the recording industry are thought to be the loveliest people on Earth.

Re:It depends on contracts

[LordKronos]

Except the music studios typically DON'T finance it. From pretty much everything I've every read, they usually give the artist an advance to cover costs and then recoup that money from the sales. That's one of the many reason a lot of artists hardly see any money come their way from record sales.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Ruke]

Not true. The typical record label deal is essentially a loan: artists are given a lump sum of money up front, and then are under contract to produce and sell music. The record labels then take a cut of the sales, paying off the orginal forwarded money over time. From TFA:

Independent copyright experts, however, find that argument unconvincing. Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects.

“This is a situation where you have to use your own common sense,” said June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at the Columbia University School of Law. “Where do they work? Do you pay Social Security for them? Do you withdraw taxes from a paycheck? Under those kinds of definitions it seems pretty clear that your standard kind of recording artist from the ’70s or ’80s is not an employee but an independent contractor.”

Re:It depends on contracts

[Todd Knarr]

Two things though. First, as a software developer your contract with your employer states explicitly that the copyright on code you produce rests with your employer, not you. If it didn't, the default rules are that you own the code, not the company. Second. software developers like that are also W2 employees, not independent contractors. And that makes a difference. There's been several run-ins between companies and the IRS about employee status, and the labels may be walking into a minefield. If the artists really are employees, not independent contractors, then the labels are responsible for payroll tax withholding, unemployment insurance payments, employer's portion of SSI and Medicare taxes, etc. etc..

Re:It depends on contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

*Achievement unlocked: Didn't read the article! +25 Slashpoints!*

FTA:

Independent copyright experts, however, find that argument unconvincing. Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects.

“This is a situation where you have to use your own common sense,” said June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at the Columbia University School of Law. “Where do they work? Do you pay Social Security for them? Do you withdraw taxes from a paycheck? Under those kinds of definitions it seems pretty clear that your standard kind of recording artist from the ’70s or ’80s is not an employee but an independent contractor.”

Re:It depends on contracts

[Zeinfeld]

The typical recording contract of that era was expressly designed to avoid being categorized as 'work for hire' as it would mean a shorter copyright term. The recording contracts were also designed to bilk the artists out of their royalties by requiring them to bear a very long list of costs. Work for hire has a very specific meaning in copyright law. The labels can't redefine the meaning retrospectively. Or at least they can't unless they can bribe Congress to do it for them.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Rhywden]

Fun part is that in Germany, such an argument would bring immediate retribution by the state - since, if they're actually employees, the companies have to copay for such things like pensions or health insurance.
Thus they'd leverage huge fines against the companies making that argument since we all know that musicians rarely see a significant dime out of their contracts - which is the reason why they're doing tours where they also sell t-shirts to make money.

Re:It depends on contracts

[PuckSR]

Not exactly. That analogy is too simple.

A coder is hired to write code for a project. A musician is 'hired' to record a work that they created. The work exists independent of the record company. The same cannot be said of the coder. The coder does not write code and then get hired to put his code in the game. If the code existed before the formal business relationship, then the code is licensed from the coder.

This is actually a point that frequently comes up. Someone works on a project while working for a company. The company claims they have rights to the project because they were employing the individual at the time. The individual will typically argue that the work was not part of their "work for hire" and the truth of that claim is debated by the courts.

The RIAA argument makes sense in certain respects. Take "The Monkeys" for example and their hit song "Daydream Believer". It was written by John Stewart under contract to write songs. It was performed by "The Monkeys" as part of an employment contract to make a TV show. No debate, very clear cut. However, it gets more confusing when we have a song that was written and performed before the contract even existed. In that case, it is pretty clear that the creation of that work was not "work for hire" and therefore the record company is really licensing the music(though they may have had the artist agree to something else). Lots of artistic works fall into the cracks somewhere in the middle. This will be very interesting.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the artists self-financed it and didn't make contracts with record labels, it basically is work for hire.

And this is completely backwards from how it should be - the artists should be hiring the labels to record/distribute/promote the creative works, not the other way around!

Now, the Pope getting Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - now THAT's what I call a "work for hire!"

Re:It depends on contracts

[The Grim Reefer2]

The labels can't redefine the meaning retrospectively. Or at least they can't unless they can bribe Congress to do it for them.

Oh, OK, so they can do it then.

Re:It depends on contracts

[MightyMartian]

There are plenty of artists who negotiated the rights to their masters; effectively they own the recordings. Ray Charles was one, and I believe David Bowie also owns the masters to all but his early material.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Moryath]

No kidding. How long till the bags of money start flowing into congressional hands quietly, again?

This is the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act all over again.

Re:It depends on contracts

[elrous0]

The studios also learned a neat trick a long time ago. You dazzle your young artists with big houses and lots of bling (most, if not all of it, owned by the studio of course) that they get to "keep" just as long as they're still making you money. When they burn out, you just kick them to the curb and pass on the mansion, cars, and jewelry to the next sucker. Fans see these rap stars flashing all this shiny crap in videos and living in fancy digs. But they never hear about what happens after they're not making money anymore and hammer time has turned into eviction time.

Re:It depends on contracts

[gurps_npc]

Wrong. You misunderstand the specifics of the case.

The problem is that all the original contracts assumed that the copyright would expire after a reasonable period of time. As such, when the authors sold the rights, they sold the rights until the end of the THEN EXISTING COPYRIGHT laws.

When congress sunk to evil and stupidly extended the copyright laws, some of the congressmen had enough morals to put in restrictions. That is, they refused to extend the copyrights to give the publishers additional rights, as the entire argument was to give the artists more rights. As such, the law did not just extend their contracts forever.

The whole point of this article is that congress specifically put in restrictions to help the original artists. Effectively, congress tried to write the law so that people that had previously sold the copyrights had in fact sold only rights until the original copyright had expired. It was in effect an attempt to stop exactly what you are talking about.

And yes, Congress CAN simply do that. They can re-write any contract they want. They can pass a law right now saying all game copyrights are now invalid and people may copy them to there hearts' content. They won't, but they have the legal power to do that.

The question is not whether it was 'work for hire'. That is a moronic argument, that the companies will try to focus the courts about. Instead the question is did Congress write the law well, or did they do a poor job of it. If they did right, then the artist recover the copyrights, as Congress intended.

If they did it poorly, then the corporations will have pulled a quick one, stealing the extended copyrights from the people Congress tried to give it to.

Re:It depends on contracts

[The Grim Reefer2]

No kidding. How long till the bags of money start flowing into congressional hands quietly, again?

This is the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act all over again.

Well of course congress must help the poor recording industry. If they don't do this how will the RIAA be able to pay congress... I mean donate to their campaign fund... I mean afford to protect the artists. Yeah, that's it. They must have this so that they can afford to protect artists. And by extension the economy and the American way of life. In fact doing this is the patriotic duty of congress. ;-)

Re:It depends on contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

The studios also learned a neat trick a long time ago. You dazzle your young artists with big houses and lots of bling (most, if not all of it, owned by the studio of course) that they get to "keep" just as long as they're still making you money. When they burn out, you just kick them to the curb and pass on the mansion, cars, and jewelry to the next sucker.

The bizarre scenario you describe was apparently something you thought up while you were high. This has never happened.

Re:It depends on contracts

[cfulmer]

It doesn't matter. Whether a work is a "work made for hire" is a question of law. It either has to (1) be made in the scope of an employee's employment, or (2) be "Specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire Your game example is likely a part of an "audiovisual work" so as long as all the contracts say it's a "work made for hire", it'll be a "work made for hire." Music (both the sounds recording and the underlying composition) are different matters -- I don't see how (2) could stand. (1) might, but it's unlikely -- rock stars are generally not employees of the studios. The studios' best argument is that the works are "Joint Works" -- it may be the musicians playing, but it was the studios' recording engineers and other people who made it sound like it did on the recording. So, while the band might be able to take back its copyright assignment to the studio, the band would only end up being a joint owner with the studio. The net result would be that both the studio AND the band could sell the music. But, that gets more complicated when you realize that there's another copyright in the underlying notes and lyrics -- if the author of THOSE took his copyright back, then, perhaps, nobody would own enough rights to publish the CD.

Re:It depends on contracts

[i_ate_god]

This is true. Except recording contracts are setup to force the artist to repay the costs of production, so presumably, they are not works for hire since ultimately, the artist paid for the production of the workand thus "self-financed"

Re:It depends on contracts

[AlamedaStone]

No kidding. How long till the bags of money start flowing into congressional hands quietly, again?

This is the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act all over again.

Does that imply the money ever stopped? The only difference is now they don't have to tell you it's them slipping singles into Harry Reid's halter top. Money is speech after all. But it's silent speech. Like carbon monoxide.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Oakey]

Erm, it did, I'm pretty sure Suge Knight screwed Tupac exactly like this.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Rob the Bold]

Unless the artists self-financed it and didn't make contracts with record labels, it basically is work for hire.

First of all, wouldn't the law trump a contract?

And secondly, isn't it strange to call it "work for hire" when the recording costs like studio time, engineering, mastering, distribution and promotion are taken off the top before the artists ever see a dime? Is it "work for hire" if you have to sign your own paycheck?

Re:It depends on contracts

[AlamedaStone]

Fun part is that in Germany, such an argument would bring immediate retribution by the state - since, if they're actually employees, the companies have to copay for such things like pensions or health insurance.

Thus they'd leverage huge fines against the companies making that argument since we all know that musicians rarely see a significant dime out of their contracts - which is the reason why they're doing tours where they also sell t-shirts to make money.

You Germans are so backwards. Here in America, it is every citizen's right not to have a pension or healthcare.

Re:It depends on contracts

[ColdWetDog]

Harry Reid's halter top

You sir (or madam) have thoroughly grossed me out.

Now I have to go Clorox my mind.

Re:It depends on contracts

[iamwahoo2]

I do not agree that it is the same as a software developer working for a company as an employee. Many artists create their works before they are ever signed by a label, so they cannot always be thought of as an employee, but a subcontractor might be a closer analog. If my knowledge is correct, a software development contract basically has to spell out "this is work for hire" or it is not considered work for hire.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Lumpy]

"they usually give the artist an advance to cover costs and then recoup that money from the sales."

WITH INTEREST! You are forgetting a teeny tiny part...

Re:It depends on contracts

[Lumpy]

"First of all, wouldn't the law trump a contract?"

Corporations are trying very hard to fix that loophole.

Re:It depends on contracts

[icebike]

If they now claim these artists were employees all along can you imagine the back taxes the labels would owe for Fica, UI, etc.

Seems like an ill thought out strategy to me.

Re:It depends on contracts

[sribe]

Two things though. First, as a software developer your contract with your employer states explicitly that the copyright on code you produce rests with your employer, not you. If it didn't, the default rules are that you own the code, not the company.

This is true of an independent working under contract. It is not true of a W2 employee who is writing the software on company time as part of his W2 job.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you troll every story on slashdot? I tire of modding you down.

Re:It depends on contracts

[next_ghost]

Mod parent up. The major labels tried to push music recordings on the list in the late 90s as a "spelling correction" but it didn't work out in the end because the public found out and it caused a huge uproar among artists.

Re:It depends on contracts

[next_ghost]

Not only that, the US copyright law specifically states what kind of work can be a work for hire. There are 9 items on the list and stand-alone music recordings are not among them. So it doesn't matter how many times the recording contract says it's a work for hire (yes, they all do anyway), the law says it's not. Period.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Sique]

Fun part is that in Germany, there is no work for hire comparable to the anglo-american counterpart. Even if you create something as an employee for a company, you still have the Urheberrecht (even if you have to give the distribution rights to your employer per contract). An exception only exists for computer programs (69b UrhG).

Re:It depends on contracts

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Second. software developers like that are also W2 employees, not independent contractors. And that makes a difference. There's been several run-ins between companies and the IRS about employee status, and the labels may be walking into a minefield

Employee or not is irrelevent. Contractors can also work for hire. However, work for hire has a very specific "at least x-of-y" condition list. Also, work-for-hire requires, with no exceptions, that the contract include those words.

IANAL, and your state/country laws may differ from the ones I'm familar with. I also might be totally wrong. Yada-yada-yada, don't whine to me when what I said turns out to be wrong and costs you and your twin brother ownership of facebook.

Re:It depends on contracts

[WorBlux]

Most are self-financed in a way. Production costs are discounted before any royalties are paid out. Musicians unlike Coders or Artists that work on games do not receive a wage, but rather royalties. Why would you pay an employee royalties?

Re:It depends on contracts

[rekoil]

"Work For Hire" provisions are unenforceable in recording contracts because US copyright law is rather specific about what can be considered a work for hire - and sound recordings are not on the list. It was briefly added in 1999 but was removed a year later.

Re:It depends on contracts

[thunderclap]

"And yes, Congress CAN simply do that. They can re-write any contract they want. They can pass a law right now saying all game copyrights are now invalid and people may copy them to there hearts' content. They won't, but they have the legal power to do that." They would if a billionaire used his shell companies and faux employees to dump millions into election coffers. Wouldn't that be fun. I wait for the day that All TOS are declared unenforceable. That will be a fun day as well.
But the real question is how many billions would it take to buy an law or executive order that would end the RIAA?

Re:It depends on contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Willie Nelson will be happy to hear that... proper payroll accounting would have saved him a fortune in fines from the IRS.

Re:It depends on contracts

[HermMunster]

It was added by some Congressional staffer who inserted the verbiage just before the vote. It was signed into law. After a major outcry by the artists it was corrected. That ex-Congressional staffer now works for the RIAA making nearly half a million annual salary.

Re:It depends on contracts

[mabhatter654]

That's like the MO... of course it's in a few more layers as "industry friends" who "hook you up". Then the kids find out their deep in debt, owe "taxes" on the loan they got, and can't repay it. It's all crooked as hell. if you're really lucky they'll off you in a celebrity plane "accident".

I mean come on, it's so cliche they made Josey and the Pussycats and aped the whole thing 10 years ago.

Re:It depends on contracts

[doccus]

I'm sorry, but the FACT is , that in EVERY recording contract.. the artists DO finance it themselves.. on the strength of a loan made to them.. which is taken out of every dollar they earn from that moment on until it is paid back IN FULL. THe artists have a moral right to claim ownership of their creations.. and irrespective of the legal position (which DOES support that anyways). any society which is so 'green crazy' that they don't immediately recognize that is already rotten to the core... IMHO... Although you have probably deduced my profession , my personal bias in no way lessens the truth of this statement.....

Re:It depends on contracts

[harlows_monkeys]

Unless the artists self-financed it and didn't make contracts with record labels, it basically is work for hire.

Nope. To be a work for hire it has to either by a work prepared by an employee in the scope of his employment, or it has to be "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities" (17 USC 101).

Your typical artist is not an employee of the record company and so their work would not fall under the "employee in the scope of his employment" option. That leave the other option. To fall under that option the work must fall under one of the specific categories enumerated in the statute and the contract must state it is a work for hire. Note that is an and, not an or. If the work does not fall into one of the enumerated categories it CANNOT be turned into a work for hire via contract.

Re:It depends on contracts

[MrMatto]

Check this out: It goes into detail about the predatory contracts the record companies stick desperate musicians with. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Re:It depends on contracts

[Meski]

The wave / particle theory, as it applies to the RIAA

Re:It depends on contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally recordings (and other select art works even though done within a single legal entity) are NOT "work for hire". A murial is considered the artist work even though it is ordered and paid for by the owners of the building, this also goes for music recorded by an artist in someones studio. The rationale here being that without the artist the studio and record company could not have produced the work, whereas "work for hire" is defined by "being possibly made by others in the creators absence" So, eg. the work you and I create for our employers, could conceivably be made by others (Not as brilliantly or with the same flair and perfect code style... but still :D)

This is just another case showing that record labels are NOT there for the promotion and creation of art, as they claim elsewhere, but for the sole purpose of gathering money for their executives and owners.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Hognoxious]

hit song "Daydream Believer". It was written by John Stewart under contract to write songs

It was performed by "The Monkeys"

Were they America's answer to The Beetles?

It'd be awesome of Deaf Leopard did a cover of it.

Re:It depends on contracts

[pnutjam]

Is that you Rush?

Re:It depends on contracts

[Jason Levine]

New rule (if corporations get their way): Law trumps contract if contract is not in the company's favor. Contract trumps law if the contract is in the company's favor. If both are in the company's favor, the company gets to choose which trumps which.

Re:It depends on contracts

[Yamioni]

It'd be awesome of Deaf Leopard did a cover of it.

I find it hard to believe a leopard could hold a guitar to do the cover, much less so if he were deaf.

Def Leppard on the other hand would totally kick ass.

Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[elrous0]

Yeah, they were way more expensive than those master recordings. But if you have the means, I highly recommend it.

Expect "clarifications" to this law any day now--just like Congress constantly revises copyright law to make sure that nothing past 1923 is EVER out of copyright (after generous campaign contributions from the good people at Disney, of course).

And if you're thinking there is anything that you as a citizen can do, don't you worry your pretty little head about it. With both major parties supporting pro-industry IP legislation, there is really nothing you can do about it. But if you want a nice form letter to frame, you can go ahead and waste a stamp and write to your Congressman.

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, this is pretty much the case. Two words for musicians: go indie!

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[tepples]

But if an indie musician writes his own songs, how can he be sure that he didn't accidentally copy a substantial part of a song written by a songwriter in the mainstream music industry?

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[PTBarnum]

Fortunately congresspeople, like creators of other works of law, were granted 'termination rights,' which allow them to regain control of their souls after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. 'We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most politician souls,' said Lucifer, general counsel for the Decree Enacting Vocational Industry League, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of lobbyists.

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[Anonymous Coward]

You're cynicism is laudable, but you fail to recognize that Congress has many masters, and sometimes these masters come into conflict. In fact, the RIAA got Congress in 1999 to say that recordings were works for hire, but the musician lobby subsequently had that amendment repealed. This is why the definition of "work for hire" under S. 101 of the Copyright Act has the absurd language telling courts to disregard the previous amendment. Otherwise, the fact that Congress repealed it would tell courts that the recordings definitely weren't works for hire. Part of the compromise struck was that Congress would attempt to put the status quo back into place so that the RIAA and musicians could try their luck in the courts, without ostracizing their congress critters further.

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, they'll sue him anyway.

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[TechnicalPenguin]

Expect "clarifications" to this law any day now--

They tried that about 11 years ago, as covered here, among other places.

The short version is that in November 1999, "the recording industry lobby quietly slipped a passage deep into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, that classified sound recordings as work for hire -- effectively preventing copyright from reverting to the artist after 35 years." The change was noticed, strong arguments were made against it, and the RIAA ended up reversing its position in August 2000. The Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000 reverted the change in September 2000.

Oddly enough, the supporters of the change back then insisted that this new language wasn't actually a "change" in the law, but merely a "clarification."

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you're helping the USPS...

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[lakeland]

To be fair, it won't cost you a stamp

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[rust627]

This needs action.
When you think of the multiple ways copyright is used, this can be seen as a wedge action.
If they can get away with this then they will push for the same for books, simultaneously arguing that authors are the intellectual property holders and merely paid labour who merely wrote the book.
Because if they can push this through, it also gives them a further basis for not paying royalties to the songwriters,authors, comic producers, and in fact any and all content producers within their realm.
Time Warner et al will love this if they can get it through.

Re:Don't worry, the RIAA owns Congress too

[thunderclap]

Fortunately congresspeople, like creators of other works of law, were granted 'termination rights,' which allow them to regain control of their souls after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. 'We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most politician souls,' said Lucifer, general counsel for the Decree Enacting Vocational Industry League, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of lobbyists.

You didnt quote Lucifer right. "We believe the termination right doesn't apply to politician's souls, as most don't have them to begin with. I supply them with a shadow one. After their service and 35 years I let them buy it back. So how can you have termination rights on something that has always been mine?' Is the correct quote.

Think of the Artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't somebody think of the artists? It's a shame there wasn't a group who could fight tirelessly for the rights of the starving artists who are struggling to make ends meet. /sarcasm

OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, fine. They were employees. You did file all the IRS paperwork required for an employee, didn't you? No? Hello, RIAA this is the IRS. We'd like to review some matters with you...

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[rveldpau]

That's good. If I had moderation points, you'd be getting them

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[TheSpoom]

I guarantee that legally speaking, they'll claim they were independent contractors, which allows a "work for hire" without all the messiness of an employer-employee relationship. It has the added bonus of making the musician responsible for all taxes.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Compaqt]

Wha? I thought that being an independent contractor is exactly the situation in which you do own your own work, unless you have an explicit contract stating "work for hire".

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Compaqt]

Well, I do have mod points, but the latest Slashcode update removed the handy "Moderate" button at the bottom of the page, making it impossible to moderate if you have JavaScript turned off. /rant

Bring back the "Moderate" button!

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[cpt kangarooski]

It's somewhat more complicated.

In the US, a work may be a work made for hire under one of two circumstances:

First, if the work is specially ordered or commissioned, the work falls into one of a handful of categories enumerated in the Copyright Act (e.g. part of an atlas, part of a motion picture) and the parties involved expressly agree in a written instrument that they both sign, that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (N.B.: Unless the work is of one of the specific types, explicitly saying that a work is made for hire doesn't mean anything.)

Second, if the work is prepared by an employee in the scope of their employment, the employer will be considered to be the author, unless the parties involved expressly agree in a written instrument that they both sign, that the work shall not be considered a work made for hire.

But Congress never really addressed what constitutes employment in this situation, so the courts will look at a number of factors to try to figure it out, e.g. who supplied the equipment that was used, where the labor occured, how it was treated for tax purposes, etc. It's entirely possible for a contractor to be considered an employee for the purposes of this part of copyright law, given the right circumstances.

The Wikipedia article on this goes into more depth.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[gman003]

No no no! Don't introduce those two organizations! You'll reach a critical mass of evil and the world will collapse into a singularity!

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Asic Eng]

I think you basically just need to set: Account->Discussions->Classic Discussion System(D1).

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no! Don't introduce those two organizations! You'll reach a critical mass of evil and the world will collapse into a singularity!

Oddly, I've never actually seen the IRS as "evil". More of "neutral, necessary, and tedious", but not "evil".

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

The "independent contractor" claim has been attempted before from developers to used car and time-share salespeople. AFAIK, it's always been an attempt to not pay the person or the government unemployment & social security taxes.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Idbar]

Furthermore, if that's the result of an innovative creation by their employees, they should patent it, and get the 20 years patents should get.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Darinbob]

I think there's a difference between owning a song and owning a particular recording of that song. So maybe the rights to the music and words could revert to the musician while the recording company still retains rights to the actual recording.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually much simplier than that. For it to be a hired work, that artist would have to be paid one time for the creation of the work.

Virtually all record company contracts, however, consist of an "advance against royalties." The costs of recording the music is usually accounted as an expense against the royalty account. (That generally includes the cost of the physical tape(s) and/or digital media, so the idea of the record company simply owning the recordings because they own the tapes is erroneous.)

A royalty is paid for the right to reproduce and sell a copyrighted work. NOT as a residual payment against a work for hire. The contracts are quite specific about who owns the copyrights to the music and what reproduction rights are being transacted against. Recording contracts are NOT a purchase of copyright; they're a licensing of IP. Even Judge Judy knows that from looking at the receipts. I have no idea what the RIAA is thinking (other than simple greed), but there isn't ashred of copyright or conract law that supports an assertion that a royalty-based contract covering a reproduction license is actually a transfer of copyright under the "for hire" assertion. The contract itself specifically refutes that assertion. There in no interpretive language in such contracts; it's completely straightforward.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you never read the wheel of time. If you had, you would know that bringing two great evils into close contact will produce a potentially dangerous, but highly localized, explosion, followed by the elimination of both evils. Let the good times roll!

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[dontmakemethink]

Sounds like Lynyrd Skynyrd may deeply regret the song "Workin' for MCA"

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were only employed at one company, without the right to work for other companies, which I believe their contracts state, then they are employees, in the same way that contractors at Microsoft were considered employees. If anyone is considered an employee they are entitled to minimum wage (even waitresses, which must get at least minimum wage when tips and wage are added together). I'm sure a lot of the lesser acts wish that they did get minimum wage - it'd be higher than what they get from the record company.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[ColdWetDog]

Oddly, I've never actually seen the IRS as "evil". More of "neutral, necessary, and tedious", but not "evil".

That is odd. Perhaps you aren't an American?

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

They became evil when they sent me threatening letters after they made a mistake in reading my 1040 and issued me a larger refund than I was entitled to, which was proven as a mistake on their part when I requested a transcript of my return.

They sure as hell found that $500 oversight real quick, with the letters starting about a month after I cashed the check. But when some athlete, actor, or business mogul has millions in back taxes, well shit, we must have missed that glaring error in the books that's happened every year for the last two decades.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this new Exasperate!! -button right down there on the bottom left of the post instead.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Compaqt]

Thanks, it's already set.

In fact, now, you can't even change your prefs without JavaScript because there's no submit button (however labeled).

At least you can still post and read without JavaScript.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Kurzweil would be happy, if nobody else is :-)

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[munozdj]

Don't worry! Once they pass the modified Chandrasekhar limit for critical financial mass (hasn't been properly calculated for monetary matter), they're pretty much in the realm of Relativistic Accounting, for which no solution exists.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[gman003]

Hmmm.... is there some financial equivelant to Hawking Radiation? And can we calculate the length of time it would take such a singularity to evaporate?

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[TheSpoom]

What? In anything I've ever heard about recording contracts, they've required an absolute assignment of copyright (including copyright for a predetermined number of future works) to the benefit of the company and the detriment of the musician. I am also 99% sure that the words "work for hire" are explicitly mentioned in the contract. They are written by highly paid lawyers, after all.

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[TheSpoom]

In fact it was claimed by my employer for my first development job. I appealed to Revenue Canada and won, since I would otherwise have to pay my own SS and unemployment taxes. (The employer, thankfully, is still on speaking terms with me; it was fairly obvious to all parties that I was an employee since I did random, day-to-day development work for them for a year or two. I don't like burning bridges unnecessarily.)

Re:OK fine, they were employees

[munozdj]

I'd think that the market itself its it's own Hawking Radiation, and there's no limit to the mass a financial system can have for it to spontaneously evaporate... I think we may be on to something here

Covers

[Dj Stingray]

Can an artist make a "Cover Song" of his/her song out of contract of a big record label, I wonder why artists haven't thought of this. Or do record companies own everything an artist does while in contract?

Re:Covers

[chefmonkey]

Some have. For some reason, they rarely turn out to be very good, and some are downright impossible to listen to. For example, if you are at all familiar with Jefferson Starship/Starship, I dare you to listen to this album: http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Hits-Of-The-80s/dp/B000VB9WSO/

Re:Covers

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amazon.com/Spot-Difference-Squeeze/dp/B003O63T28/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313439201&sr=8-1

Difford and Tilbrook FTW.

Re:Covers

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe John Fogerty, the lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival, made a solo cover of a CCR song. The record company sued him. He sounded too much like himself. Not sure how that was finally settled.

Re:Covers

[Miamicanes]

In the real world, here's what happens to pop stars: their song becomes #1, they sing and perform it a bazillion times, get burned out of singing and performing that song and vow to never, ever sing it again, and literally go for 20 years without so much as humming the melody. Then their kids get to college, and Princeton/Yale/Harvard is pretty expensive, even if you ARE fairly wealthy. They also start feeling old, and decide to go on tour to rekindle the flame, relive their youth, and pay their kids' tuition -- and at that point, they literally haven't sung the song in 20 years. If they're lucky, they kept singing for fun in the meantime, and still have that skill & their voices, so they can relearn it. If not... well... they get to lipsync a lot and disappoint people at dog tracks, fairs, and college homecoming events for the next couple of years.

The point is, 20+ years down the road, quite a few former popstars would be better off NOT trying to resurrect their careers by performing their old songs. A few artists pull it off and shine. The other 97% end up disillusioning and disappointing their fans.

Re:Covers

[The Grim Reefer2]

Some have. For some reason, they rarely turn out to be very good, and some are downright impossible to listen to. For example, if you are at all familiar with Jefferson Starship/Starship, I dare you to listen to this album: http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Hits-Of-The-80s/dp/B000VB9WSO/

First of all, anything they did after changing their name from Jefferson Airplane is downright impossible to listen to . So even the original recordings were awful IMO. But that album was recorded in 2007, so most, if not all, of the songs were recorded 20+ years later. On top of that, I don't think any of the members that were on the 2007 recording were in the band in the 80's, or it was only one member at best. And, no, I won't take that dare.

Re:Covers

[MightyMartian]

It's an amusing in a "they did what?" kind of way. Fogerty had had a very unpleasant breakup from his band and his old record company. About 15 years after CCR released Run Through The Jungle, Fogerty basically lifted the chorus and overall structure of song (which he wrote) for the song Old Man Down The Road. His old record company sued him for copyright infringement. In the end, he did prevail, but the whole thing was ludicrous, and part of a very long-running set of disputes that Fogerty had with his former band, his former label and his former management.

Re:Covers

[thestudio_bob]

Haha... I was renting a studio space out of a place in St. Louis years ago and Marty Balin was there recording some songs for a new album. I've never fully recovered from those two weeks of listening to him sing.

This was the album... Freedom Flight

Re:Covers

[afabbro]

First of all, anything they did after changing their name from Jefferson Airplane is downright impossible to listen to.

And anything before they changed the name was even worse.

Re:Covers

[Darinbob]

And basically it's all hard to listen to once you come down from the high.

Funny...

[WillyWanker]

It's funny how the RIAA is so concerned with artists' livelihoods when they're bitching about piracy. But when it actually comes time to pay those artists, or transfer the ownership of the songs they created, the RIAA suddenly starts playing a different tune (pun most certainly intended).

Re:Funny...

[observer7]

i agree .they want to have it both ways ,shows the real reason is greed.

Re:Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they claim the artists were their employees, ask the recording companies for documentation to show they paid the employer taxes. What, they didn't pay their taxes and benefits? Then either they weren't employees, or they committed fraud in not paying the IRS.

Re:Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no! It's not funny.

It amplifies their true hypocrisy and displays just how much they're full of shit. They're trumpeting the same tune they did 35 years ago. The RIAA will never change. Not this year, nor in 35 years. And THAT is why they do more harm than good.

Move, Change, or Get out of the Way, RIAA! Society needs to progress and you're in the fucking way!

Maybe, maybe not.

[khasim]

Remember, the people in Congress are always up for re-election (unless retiring).

Now if a few groups like The Eagles decide to make this a public issue, then their fans may be persuaded to vote in a different person who is more agreeable to The Eagles' argument.

It's difficult for the various corporate interests to simultaneously claim to be pro-artist-rights with regard to "intellectual property" and also claim that the artist was nothing more than a day-laborer with no rights to the finished product.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Merk42]

Remember, the people in Congress are always up for re-election (unless retiring).

Now if a few groups like The Eagles decide to make this a public issue, then their fans may be persuaded to vote in a different person who is more agreeable to The Eagles' argument.

It's difficult for the various corporate interests to simultaneously claim to be pro-artist-rights with regard to "intellectual property" and also claim that the artist was nothing more than a day-laborer with no rights to the finished product.

And that replacement to the Congressman will be bought and paid for once entering office.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[mbone]

It's difficult for the various corporate interests to simultaneously claim to be pro-artist-rights with regard to "intellectual property" and also claim that the artist was nothing more than a day-laborer with no rights to the finished product.

If they can lie about the first, why should it be difficult to lie about the second ?

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Schemat1c]

Remember, the people in Congress are always up for re-election (unless retiring).

Now if a few groups like The Eagles decide to make this a public issue, then their fans may be persuaded to vote in a different person who is more agreeable to The Eagles' argument.

It is well known that the candidate who drops the most money on his/her campaign is the one who 'wins'. There is a lot of money out there for politicians who are willing to support the desires of these parasites, especially now that money has been ruled 'free speech'.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[MightyMartian]

The whole "pro-artist" claim was pure unadulterated bullshit even before this latest wrinkle. Look at acts like King Crimson and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, who basically were ripped off in every conceivable way. The record companies, even where the contract bound them, simply ignored it, did what they wanted, and then challenged the artists to come after them. Tom Petty, as I understand, had hit records under his belt and went broke at one point. Robert Fripp has had an ongoing war with Universal/UMG over their violation of contracts, even to the point where this huge corporation with a kazillion accountants cannot even provide him with a printout of the the royalties owed to him. Basically, their attitude has been "Don't like it, sue us, and we'll keep this going forever." In Fripp's case, he's called their bluff and has basically told them he is willing to fight on until a judge orders compliance.

Hell, even EMI tried to fuck over the Beatles on royalty payments, basically withholding, in violation of contract, until the surviving members and the estates of Harrison and Lennon went after them. If they have no compunction against picking the most successful music act in history's pockets, imagine being a relatively small-time player.

The record companies have been evil thieving bastards for decades. Guys like Bo Diddley, who recorded seminal and highly influential pieces in the popular music genres were given a pittance, and even saw their publishing rights screwed from them, so they couldn't even at least enjoy any substantial benefit from having written the songs.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[zegota]

You really think a significant portion of the electorate is going to vote based on whether or not Billy Joel should be able to retrieve the rights for his songs?

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Chaonici]

Tom Petty's 2002 album, The Last DJ, is partially a stab at the greed and evil of the recording industry. Particularly, the tracks The Last DJ, Money Becomes King, Joe, and Can't Stop The Sun.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the immortal words of Frank Zappa (talking to the Devil): "I'll prove to you that I'm bad enough to go to hell, because I've been through it! I have seen it! It has happened to me! Remember, I was signed with Warner Brothers for eight f**king years!!!"

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[n5yat]

Not likely... every election folks are very disappointed with the job CONGRESS is doing, but they think their own district's representative is just fine. So they re-elected their guy, and that happens across all districts, with the results that the success rate for incumbents is pretty high. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[marcello_dl]

And if they are employees did they get paid? let's see the contracts?

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Em Adespoton]

It is well known that the candidate who drops the most money on his/her campaign is the one who 'wins'. There is a lot of money out there for politicians who are willing to support the desires of these parasites, especially now that money has been ruled 'free speech'.

Does this mean I have a right to money?

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[marcello_dl]

Those who basically support criminalizing their electorate, contradicting the principle that punishment must be proportional to damage? i'd say it's a data point worthy of consideration.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[KingAlanI]

That "_my_ rep isn't the problem" attitude also messes up state legislatures as surely as it does the national one.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[KingAlanI]

Yes, Zappa certainly did try to have his thorn firmly in the side of the mainstream music industry; this is just oen example

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you forget Billy Joel, or Bruce o whoever can hold a fundraiser and get thousands of people to show up and give money to a congressman in ways corporations can't. Plus people like musicians. Their endorsements can really make a difference to some people. Look at Willie nelson

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Anonymous Coward]

News media companies certainly get concerned about copyright short-term (people ripping off their stories or dodging paywalls), but they don't have an axe to grind long-term. If it gets eyeballs, they'll cover it, and if the right celebrities play their cards right, it could become a big issue in the popular consciousness. No landslides, but it could tip some close races.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[ProzacPatient]

How cute, you actually believe in democracy.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[geminidomino]

Of course not. You're not a corporate overlord.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[ColdWetDog]

In the immortal words of Frank Zappa (talking to the Devil): "I'll prove to you that I'm bad enough to go to hell, because I've been through it! I have seen it! It has happened to me! Remember, I was signed with Warner Brothers for eight f**king years!!!"

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

- Hunter S. Thompson

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[darkshadow88]

It is well known that the candidate who drops the most money on his/her campaign is the one who 'wins'. There is a lot of money out there for politicians who are willing to support the desires of these parasites, especially now that money has been ruled 'free speech'.

Does this mean I have a right to money?

The use of money is free speech, which means you can use your money however you want.

In reality, though, you can't. You can't send money to places like Iran or North Korea. You can't buy drugs as a way of speaking in favor of drug rights. You can't fund organizations that are conspiring against America (interestingly, our political parties are exempt from this one). You can't directly sell Senate seats (Rod Blagojevich found that one out the hard way).

In other words, the use of money is free speech except when it's not.

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Petfish]

Look at Willie nelson

Must I?

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Jason Levine]

But long copyright terms encourage the creation of new content! The RIAA said so! Oh, never mind. I see here that they've redefined "content" as "profit."

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[Em Adespoton]

In other words, the use of money is free speech except when it's not.

Just like actual speech ;)

Re:Maybe, maybe not.

[MightyMartian]

I think I'm going to go put on the Illinois Enema Bandit right now!

Shocked!

[Baloroth]

'We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,' said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of record labels. As the record companies see it, the master recordings belong to them in perpetuity,

Really? I definitely didn't see that coming. It is absolutely shocking that the RIAA and co. would think that they own the recording artist's soul.... er music for all time. /sarcasm

OF COURSE the RIAA is going to say that. Nevermind that the law was specifically created to handle this kind of situation, the RIAA doesn't care about the law, the artists, or consumers, they only care about the profits of their cartel. It isn't "work for hire": if that were the case, the artists would get absolutely no royalties (royalties are more or less an admission that you still own the copyright in part). Of course, they often don't get any actual royalties, but that is besides the point. Again, the artist wouldn't go on tour performing the music, the music wouldn't be released under the artist's name, all sorts of things.

The record companies finance the recording and advertising of the work, but they don't create it in any way, neither in the performance nor the writing. They deserve some recompense for that, but 35 years worth is far, far more than enough. They didn't actually do the creative effort, and they shouldn't be able to control the ultimate destiny of the recording. Work for hire might go if they wrote a song and asked someone to sing it. But generally, all creative effort belongs solely to the artist, and they deserve control of their work.

Re:Shocked!

[DavidTC]

The record companies finance the recording and advertising of the work, but they don't create it in any way, neither in the performance nor the writing.

No, even that isn't true. Record companies don't finance the recording or advertising of the work.

They issue a loan to the artist called an 'advance' (Which is spent on making the record.) and require the artist to pay it back before they start making any money.

The idea that it's a work-for-hire is complete and utter nonsense. At no point has the music industry ever operated like that.

Re:Shocked!

[Baloroth]

No, even that isn't true. Record companies don't finance the recording or advertising of the work.

They issue a loan to the artist called an 'advance' (Which is spent on making the record.) and require the artist to pay it back before they start making any money.

That is, by one definition, "financing". Just like a bank finances a mortgage for you to buy a house. The record company takes a chance (albeit a fairly small one) by advancing the money. However, you are correct, the artist is expected to pay it back (hence my comment about many artists not seeing any royalties: those go back to the record company). My point is that many artists (at least in the past) couldn't have succeeded without this financial aid and the resources of the recording industry, and I am willing to grant them (some) credit for that. Sure, it's like giving the devil credit for your musical talent in return for your soul... but still, the record companies do have something of a genuine role.

I still wish they would crawl into a corner and die (or better yet be lined up against a wall and shot), since they are no longer really needed and serve mainly to steal money from creative artists. And shove their crap music down our throats via radio and TV.

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the financing is in the form of a loan. The artists are expected to pay it back. That doesn't grant the labels any ownership rights.

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

'We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,' said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of record labels. As the record companies see it, the master recordings belong to them in perpetuity,

Really? I definitely didn't see that coming. It is absolutely shocking that the RIAA and co. would think that they own the recording artist's soul.... er music for all time. /sarcasm

It's especially un-shocking given that they spent good money bribing staffers to stuff an unrelated provision making ALL sound recordings works-for-hire into a bill in 1999...

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

They issue a loan to the artist called an 'advance' (Which is spent on making the record.) and require the artist to pay it back before they start making any money.

So if Congress decides that the record companies, or the financiers, own recordings made in that kind of situation, doesn't it follow that nearly everything in America is a work-for-hire owned by the credit card companies and the banks?

Re:Shocked!

[dontmakemethink]

You'd be surprised how much of the creative process involves management, the A&R rep, and of course the producer. However, for original songs, the process is still always the artist bringing the ideas and the others shaping them. They each get a percentage - management straight from the artist, A&R guy from the label, and the producer generally takes 4% of gross album sales from the label. These percentages are there specifically to ensure they are all duty compensated BECAUSE they don't have rights to the compositions.

And of course the RIAA is trying to push this hogwash through congress since no judge would give it the time of day.

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

DTC is right, but don't believe us - listen to those actually IN the music business (and not just some session musician, either!)...

How 'bout some dumb blonde?
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love

Or one of the first two musical guests on SNL?
http://www.janisian.com/reading/internet.php

Sorry, RIAA, but in the court of public opinion, you're going to have to fork over the goods to their RIGHTFUL owners. The sooner, the better.
Seriously, if your marketing can't rake in a profit in 35 YEARS, then maybe you shouldn't be in the biz in the first place?

Re:Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, a loan is financing. Dictionary much?

Re:Shocked!

[Jason Levine]

If I get a small business loan from a bank to start up a business, does that mean that what my business produces is owned by the bank as a "work for hire"?

If yes, then the RIAA has a case, but small businesses everywhere will cry out in anger.

If no, then the RIAA doesn't have a case (as they were acting like a bank in this regard), and small businesses are safe.

Lots of different rights involved.

[AJWM]

The studio may well own the copyright on the sound recording, just as a book publisher may own the copyright on the plates used to print a book, but unless they retain performance rights and other copyrights on the original song music and lyrics (which the original composer/songwriter could revert under this law), they can't let anyone perform that recording, or make additional copies of it. (Just as a book publisher couldn't use his plates to make additional copies of the book if the original copyright has reverted.)

The devil is partially in the details of the contract, of course. But there's no single copyright in a work, it's a collection of rights which can be sliced up and sublicensed all kinds of different ways, and over and over again unless the artist sold/licensed a right exclusively. (Writer/publisher Dean Wesley Smith compares this to a pie from which you can sell slices indefinitely, what he calls The Magic Bakery.)

(Disclaimer: IANAL, but I am a writer with a vested interest in understanding copyright law.)

Re:Lots of different rights involved.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. TFS somehow assumes the ownership of the master recording equates controlling the copyright of the song.

Re:Lots of different rights involved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, not quite (but on the right track).

The record company does not own the sound recording. The recording artist does, and that's the core of what's licensed to the record company for reproduction for commercial sale.

And no, a book publisher doesn't own the copyright on the plates; the physical plates aren't copyrightable. What IS copyrightable by the book publisher is wnat's called "trade dress". That is, the layouts, typefaces used, graphics not supplied by the writer, etc.; i.e., everything that affects the visual appearance of a specific book that isn't the text or "author-supplied materials."

The record company often doesn't own any part of the album package outside of the artwork (which often is a work-for-hire), the layouts and company logos (note that the _artist's_ logo is licensed from the artist), liner notes (again usually produced for-hire), etc.

So the artist (or author) can subsequently produce their own version of the album/book (once the reproduction rights revert), but may not use the record company's/book publishers "trade dress" in producing a subsequent album/edition. (Unless the artist/author in turn licenses the trade dress from the original publisher, of course.)

As AJWN correctly notes, Dead Smith's description of the "rights pie" is apt. But it's misleading because it implies that the core work itself may be covered by multiple copyrights. That's not accurate. In the case of a song, for instance, the lyrics have one copyright. The basic music (melody; chord progression; whatever) has its own copyright. The sound recording has a seperate copyright. The album compilation has a copyright. These are held by the creators of the specific item: composer, author, performer, producer (and don't get me started on artist/producer contracts...). Then there's the album artwork copyright, disc label art copyright; liner notes copyright; included photos copyrights; etc. Thus Dean's "pie" concept.

But the original words and music consist of a pair of copyrights, belonging solely to the creators of each (unless specifically transferred--NOT merely licensed--to another party).

It appears that the RIAA is attempting to assert a permanent license to a sound recording, perhaps based on their ownership of the for-hire copyright components that went into the creation of their commercial reproduction of the album and its associated trade dress. But that's fallacious because they cannot own the core sound recording if it was recorded under an "advance against royalties for a reproduction license" for that sound recording, which is _exactly_ what the recording contract is.

(Disclaimer: I am a contracted recording artist AND a book publisher, and I damned well know what every one of my contracts says and means and which rights I hold and under what terms those rights may be exploited and by whom.) The RIAA can go fuck themselves, exactly the same way I could go fuck MYSELF if I tried to pull this crap on any of my contracted authors.

nic

Re:Lots of different rights involved.

[Anonymous Coward]

i was under the impression that because of some old anti-trust law dating back to the days of player pianos, anyone could play a cover of any song, and there was nothing the copyright holder could do to stop them. HOWEVER, there is also some automatic royalty system in place, where the original artist will get paid for that cover version.

Even if it's not a work for hire....

[davidwr]

The master recordings is like an original artwork. While they may belong to the studio, the right to make new copies from them belongs to the copyright owner not the owner of the physical copy.

But, without the original recordings, "new copies" can't be made, effectively turning the existing print run into a limited edition. A limited edition of millions, perhaps, but still limited.

Re:Even if it's not a work for hire....

[Compaqt]

Well, what if CD's have been made of the record in the meantime? As in "digital, perfect" copies?

Re:Even if it's not a work for hire....

[maxwell demon]

But, without the original recordings, "new copies" can't be made, effectively turning the existing print run into a limited edition. A limited edition of millions, perhaps, but still limited.

The artists only need to buy a single CD of the recording, and since they own the copyright, they can do as many copies of it as they want.

HDH and SAW

[tepples]

Work for hire might go if they wrote a song and asked someone to sing it.

Not all recording artists write their own songs. How many artists have recorded songs by Holland-Dozier-Holland or Stock Aitken Waterman or other similar songwriting and production teams?

Hope the artits have deep pockets

[softWare3ngineer]

because they will need them for the decades of litigation that it will take to get the song rights back.

Re:Hope the artits have deep pockets

[jedidiah]

Some of them do actually. So this might end up successfully litigated in their favor.

The biggest cash cows will likely involve the richest musicians. However, any precedents will likely carry weight even for the more obscure and penniless artists.

I could see Janie Lane yanking Cherry Pie into the public domain just out of spite (if he weren't dead already).

Re:Hope the artits have deep pockets

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't take decades unless the RIAA is stupid enough to appeal a judgement based on a straightforward reading of their own contract. For 99.9% of all record contracts, the contract itself specifically defines the work as NOT being a work-for-hire, but rather a work-for-license, and also specifically delineates WHO holds WHAT copyrights.

If a judge is holding a contract from, say, Sony, that says specifically that the artist holds the copyright on the sound recording, there is NO CASE to be made that it's a work-for-hire. And virtually every record contract contains such language. That's the core reason for the contract's existance as a document: to define who owns what and under what terms either party may use the material in question. It's like submitting a fully accredited document on your own behalf claiming that the sky is blue, and then arguing in court that the sky is actually orange _because the document says so_.

So any given case will be decided very quickly based on the contract language.

nic

Re:Hope the artits have deep pockets

[DinDaddy]

A similar case already went through the courts on the rights to the original superman character. I believe the lawyer who prevailed for the original creators in that case is representing the Eagles.

RIAA killing music?

[lucidlyTwisted]

So rather that fighting the corner for the poor, starving, down-trodden artist; the RIAA is fighting for the rich, fat, blundering behemoths.
Who'd a'thought that?
Hypocritical scum-suckers

Musicians pay for everything

[Anonymous Coward]

That won't hold because the bands are paid and then charged for every individual cost. Normal employers don't charge you for pencils, paper, computers, lighting, travel expenses, etc that you use to do your job. But none of that matter, like the other posters said, RIAA owns congress.

work for hire requirements

[bioster]

It was recently pointed out to me that I was wrong about how I thought a 'work for hire' worked. So I did 10 seconds of research on wikipedia (yeah yeah, not authoritative, blah blah), and found this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

Giving it a read might help you arm-chair lawyers, but I'll skip to an easily digested sound bite for everyone:

A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment

On the other hand, if the work is created by an independent contractor or freelancer, the work may be considered a work for hire only if all of the following conditions are met: * the work must come within one of the nine limited categories of works listed in the definition above, namely (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, (9) an atlas; * the work must be specially ordered or commissioned; * there must be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

So, put simply you either have to be a regular 9-5er employee (which I think it's clear the vast majority of musicians are not), or you have to fulfil a pretty specific list of requirements which includes an explicit clause in their contract that it be a work for hire. Long story short, they've got no case.

Re:work for hire requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

While copyright is a matter of federal law, labor laws are more of a state matter.

Here in PA work by contractors are considered work-for-hire unless otherwise specified.

I've said it many times before: Slashdot is a bad, bad place to get legal advice. Wikipedia is almost as bad.

Re:work for hire requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

The categories aren't that hard - "(1) a contribution to a collective work" could apply to a typical song; the song is a collective work if different people worked on it, e.g. somebody wrote the lyrics, somebody else the music, somebody else did the mixing, somebody else the album art, etc. "(2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work," might also fit depending on the definition of "audiovisual work". Does audio-only count as audiovisual? Or maybe having album art makes the work an audiovisual work?

"[T]he work must be specially ordered or commissioned" seems pretty straightforward - "we have a contract, therefore the work was commissioned".

Re " there must be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire." , see http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index1.html for why this is not an issue.

Re:work for hire requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but you might want to take into consideration State laws.

"Depending on the relevant jurisdiction, state law effects may also come into play. For example, under California law, an individual who is commissioned to perform work on a work made for hire basis can be deemed to be a "Statutory Employee." If such an individual is deemed to be a Statutory Employee, the company may be liable for employee-related expenses such as State Disability Insurance and Unemployment Insurance."
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/index.cfm?pageid=34&itemid=39637

Re:work for hire requirements

[PPH]

So, you take the recording company to court over the copyright. They claim you were a statutory employee. Fine. So show me (and the state) where you paid all the required state disability, taxes, fees, etc. And maybe overtime and whatnot.

California (and other states) are desperate for revenue. And if they catch 'employers' trying to stiff them, they go after back taxes with a vengeance (and penalties). The recording companies may very well be fucked.

Re:work for hire requirements

[Daniel_Staal]

I'm willing to bet their six-figure-salary lawyers are willing to claim otherwise in a court of law. For years at a time.

Re:work for hire requirements

[SlippyToad]

But they have sacks of money stolen from their artists, and they will use every last dime to make sure the musicians who gave this world that music see NOTHING from it for their entire lives.

Just another reason I'm so glad I don't do music for a living. I would be suicidal if I thought I could NEVER get back all that work I'd put into something.

Re:work for hire requirements

[cyclomedia]

So their argument comes down to "(5) a compilation" . Their interpretation that an album is a compilation of individual songs, which just happen to be performed by the same artist - as opposed to a single work.

Studios greed will be their undoing

[bobdotorg]

The studios' accounting tricks in their standard artist's contract is what will kill them. Awesome.

FTFA:

Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects.

Here's my favorite article about record contracts from the pre-internet era:
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini.html

Re:Studios greed will be their undoing

[xMrFishx]

I read that, it was interesting, cheers.

intellectual property law doesn't protect creators

[circletimessquare]

it protects distributors. as such, it is a joke, a lie

and i'm not sure how to fix it. we do need some sort of intellectual property law. but enough sonny bonos in congress, enough lawyer hacks working for disney, extending the concept of intellectual property into realms of absurdity in terms of period of time and type of property, for a few more pennies on the corporate bottom line, and we have a broken system with no easy path to repair

I think the RIAA is jealous

[Chaonici]

Ever since they stopped filing mass lawsuits against music sharers, public hatred for the RIAA has dropped a bit. Yes, they're still doing evil things behind the scenes, like pushing for "three strikes" and supporting ACTA, but those acts aren't publicized as well as the mass lawsuits were.

By contrast, the MPAA is constantly in the news about the latest evil thing it's been doing. The same goes for similar organizations like the BSA, IFPI, and AFACT.

I think the RIAA is yearning for the days when they were the most hated copyright organization, even if they don't consciously realize it. This is one of their attempts to get back in the game and earn some well-deserved public enmity.

even if they get there way in Congress the IRS

[Joe_Dragon]

even if they get there way in Congress the IRS will be on there ass over the taxes due for work for hire jobs.

Re:even if they get there way in Congress the IRS

[BlueStrat]

even if they get there way in Congress the IRS will be on all the small-time artist's asses over the taxes due for work for hire jobs.

FTFY

What, you didn't actually think they'd bother the labels did you?

Besides all the campaign contributions, etc protecting the labels, the artists are easier and less trouble for the IRS to strangle as they don't use whole legal-dept-worth's of lawyers in defensive legal saturation-bombing and mass lobbyist assaults that would turn the skies of D.C. dark with connected-political-influence-peddler suits-with-cash-hookers-and-coke parachuting in.

Strat

Re:even if they get there way in Congress the IRS

[icebike]

Its the LABELS that would owe taxes. The Artists already paid taxes on what they took home from these one sided contracts.

Now its time for the Lables claiming that the artists were employees to fork over all the FICA and Unemployment Insurance taxes they owe with interest accumulated over 30 year. Ouch.

Re:even if they get there way in Congress the IRS

[BlueStrat]

Its the LABELS that would owe taxes.

I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm saying that regardless of who might actually technically owe, the labels won't be paying in the end, the artists will.

Simply because artists aren't politically connected nor contribute large sums to politicians, nor do they have teams of lawyers & lobbyists.

Strat

Totally OT Post, might be going crazy

[glavenoid]

This is a totally off-topic meta-post, but I'm tagging on a top comment anyway...

Is it just my browser, or is the ./ layout radically different all of a sudden? I seem to have lost the sidebars and slashboxes on the front page and the comments are spanning the width of the screen instead of the normal layout. I haven't changed anything myself far as I can tell.

Re:Totally OT Post, might be going crazy

[cheekyjohnson]

That happened to me as well (I use Opera). I just reset the layout and everything seemed to return.

Re:Totally OT Post, might be going crazy

[ColdWetDog]

This is a totally off-topic meta-post, but I'm tagging on a top comment anyway...

Is it just my browser, or is the ./ layout radically different all of a sudden? I seem to have lost the sidebars and slashboxes on the front page and the comments are spanning the width of the screen instead of the normal layout. I haven't changed anything myself far as I can tell.

Firefox did it.

Someone Should tip off the Tax Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should tip-off the tax guy and have him try to collect backward tax with penalty.
It should make a small dent in the deficit.

Just remember...

[J'raxis]

When watching this fight ensue, just remember that this is the organization that has spent the past 15-20 years fighting "piracy" claiming to be standing up for the rights of their artists.

Re:Just remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. And BMI/ASCAP are sooo concerned with their artist's livelihoods that they will walk into small coffeehouses where a CD is playing (or an open mic musician is playing a cover song), and fine the owner $10000 if he doesn't agree to pay them $1500/year for the right to play copyrighted music in his establishment. All of these fines and fees of course are returned to the artists ... uh, wait, no ... BMI/ASCAP decide which "deserving" artists get a slice of this money. In most cases, deserving=commercially promising, so I could be sitting in Java Haus playing my friend Ken's copyrighted song and BMI could walk in take $1500 from Deron the owner, and turn around and give it, not to Ken (who could really use the cash to pay his rent), but instead give it to Beyonce (who sells more music). Fuck that.

No, really, I would. BMI/ASCAP were created by the goverment back in the first half of the 20th century to protect artists whose music was getting played on radio stations but who weren't getting any royalties. Considering I could self-publish, and collect my own royalties, and the fact that BMI/ASCAP have morphed into just another collection agency for the music mafriaa, it's time for the government to do some un-creating.

Re:Just remember...

[J'raxis]

Is this the organization that collects the royalties, quietly "notifies" the artist of the collection in a manner that the artist is almost sure not to find, waits some statutory limit like 2 or 3 years, then keeps the money for themselves? I seem to remember reading about a scandal involving this practice a few years back.

Minor clarification

[davidwr]

I made the assumption that, as "master recordings," they contained information that was not available in any published copy.

Two examples:

* The master recordings were analog and in a higher fidelity than any published copy, or they were in a digital format and were in a higher fidelity than any published copy

* The master recordings were the tapes used by the engineer to make the "disk master" from which consumer copies are made. Master recordings may have one track per microphone or instrumental pickup, if not more. The "disk master" is probably 2-tracks (stereo) to mirror the consumer product.

As artifacts, the studios own the master recordings. In this way, they are like an original painting.

Re:Minor clarification

[Em Adespoton]

The next time I enter into a music-related contract, I'm going to insist that I retain copyright to right channel disk master data, allowing the studio to use it under 30-year lease -- I'll sell copyright to the left channel data :)

Somehow I don't think the studio will go for it.

Re:Minor clarification

[KingAlanI]

Yes, access to the original master is something the owner could exert some control over via some method besides copyright law.

Re:Minor clarification

[AmberBlackCat]

So if I buy a compact disc, is that an artifact? Does that mean I have the sole right to what's stored on the disc?

Re:Minor clarification

[fredan]

I made the assumption that, as "master recordings," they contained information that was not available in any published copy.

Yes, the master recording but not the sub-mixes or any other pre masters mixes that might exists...

Re:Minor clarification

[davidwr]

You have the sole right to the disk, including the right to deny others access to the disk.

You have the right to play Frisbee with it* and use it as a coaster and deny others the right to do the same.

*A favorite pasttime for AOL CDs :)

Re:Minor clarification

[AmberBlackCat]

That's my point. They might have the right to the media it's stored on, but not to the recording itself.

Re:Minor clarification

[dubsnipe]

Yes, and that is why producers have related rights over the work. However, the authory of the work still belongs to the artist.

Jack Kirby's family already tried this...and lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Kirby's family tried it against Marvel/Disney.

It didn't work...

Screw the artists!

[msobkow]

Screw the artists! We want to keep making money off them in perpetuity.

We'll just say they're "employees", despite the fact no taxes were deducted from the "payroll", no hours reported to any employment agencies, or anything else to indicate they were anything but independant artists.

Feh. The RIAA and MPAA make me sick with their fraudulent accounting games. They're nothing but thieves who contribute NOTHING OF VALUE.

Business models

[spaceyhackerlady]

I was amused to read in the article how the record companies are increasingly dependent on older releases, since newer releases are distributed through different means that don't involve them. This begs the usual question, who guaranteed that a particular business model would be a valid one forever? I wasn't aware of any such guarantees.

They also invoke ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING as part of the reason for their decline in sales. Gasp. Eek. Yikes. No evidence, of course, but they know it's happening. For sure. Yup.

The fact that many of the new releases are crap doesn't seem to enter in to it...

...laura

Re:Business models

[Meski]

I was amused to read in the article how the record companies are increasingly dependent on older releases, since newer releases are distributed through different means that don't involve them. This begs the usual question, who guaranteed that a particular business model would be a valid one forever? I wasn't aware of any such guarantees.

You believed the RIAA to be anything other than an egregious mob of rent-seekers?

Re:Business models

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs the usual question, who guaranteed that a particular business model would be a valid one forever? I wasn't aware of any such guarantees.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit."
--Robert A. Heinlein

Marks is off the mark

[oh-dark-thirty]

Steve Marks has been RIAA's legal puppet for a looong time, he must be doing something "right". I remember writing nasty letters to him back in the day, just for sport; he's an arrogant prick and I hope he's proven wrong.

War, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, I doubt people will be killed and orphaned over this.
Whatever happened to good ol' sane sports metaphors?

Communist assassins

[Msdose]

In a capitalist country the artists would be able to raise capital by selling shares in their enterprise. They could then hire the recording companies offering the best terms. Ditto for any other enterprising person with a good idea. The government regulation and legal system have made it too expensive to do this unless you're already rich. This protects the rich from competition from the poor, and keeps the poor voting for communist governments who are paid off by the rich to pretend that more regulation and expense will punish the rich, but actually protects them from competition from the poor.

Maybe this is a good thing...

[grapeape]

Look at how many popular bands from the late 70's and early 80's are still around now and still popular. Bands like Aerosmith, Van Halen, ACDC, Pink Floyd, Kiss, Elvis Costello, The Cure, Prince, Tom Petty, Fleetwood Mac, The Pretenders, John Melancamp, Bruce Springsteen, etc...are all still around in one form or another and all still selling well and have huge fan bases. Perhaps this the the time when the RIAA's hypocrisy is fully exposed and the tide turns? While money can be very influential in politics so is a support base...I would imagine that it would be rather easy for artists to enlighten and sway popular opinion. While I know its definitely a difficult fight, ultimately the politicians care about reelection more than how greased their palms get in the short term and going up for reelection as "the guy that screwed over Springsteen" surely isn't going to garner the popular vote, the RIAA may have the money but they dont have the electorate.

Re:Maybe this is a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the guy that screwed over Springsteen" surely isn't going to garner the popular vote

I don't know... we see the guys who screwed up the economy get re-elected again and again.

Re:Maybe this is a good thing...

[Heddahenrik]

If Springsteen wants money, I suggest that he goes out and play some concerts. I don't see why anyone should get money for stuff they recorded a long time ago. It's OK if someone sells old copies of records or tunes, but there is NO REASON to give them a monopoly.

It would be so much better if the money spent on buying old music, went to something useful, like investments for the future. Ex-musicians and RIAA will just spend the money on bribes and jet set lifestyles. Not something the state should pay for by giving them monopolies.

Minor clarification

[davidwr]

I made the assumption that, as "master recordings," they contained information that was not available in any published copy.

Two examples:

* The master recordings were analog and in a higher fidelity than any published copy, or they were in a digital format and were in a higher fidelity than any published copy

* The master recordings were the tapes used by the engineer to make the "disk master" from which consumer copies are made. Master recordings may have one track per microphone or instrumental pickup, if not more. The "disk master" is probably 2-tracks (stereo) to mirror the consumer product.

As artifacts, the studios own the master recordings. In this way, they are like an original painting.

Ex post facto

[ZombieBraintrust]

Warning I'm not a lawyer. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. They can't change the law retroactivly in a way that takes property from one group and gives it to another. With copyright extentions they get around it because the public domain isn't a person with rights.

Re:Ex post facto

[Cheerio Boy]

Warning I'm not a lawyer. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. They can't change the law retroactivly in a way that takes property from one group and gives it to another. With copyright extentions they get around it because the public domain isn't a person with rights.

You think that's air you're breathing?

The labels, like any of the other corrupt extortion industries, will just up the amount of money to the gooberment and/or threaten anybody else they need to until the law is removed, changed, or side-stepped.

What!

[bigsexyjoe]

Rewarding people for their work contradicts the principles of the free market. It will not be allowed.

Employee benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an artist who recorded songs for the RIAA. Since I've been officially the past 35 years, I would like my benefits. No? Then stop bullshitting and give up the rights to my songs.

Work for hire?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean that they are giving up on the life+70 years term and opting for the 90 year term or will they just claim the opposite 55 years from now?

If they were employees

[tqft]

- call the IRS and audit the bastards for back tax

Re:intellectual property law doesn't protect creat

[Anonymous Coward]

intellectual property law doesn't protect creators, it protects distributors. as such, it is a joke, a lie

The "joke and lie" is that it doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". If you think the purpose is to protect the creators, you are part of the problem.

Re:intellectual property law doesn't protect creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. The artists that don't sell their copyrights (or agree to create so called works for hire) have the same ownership protections as record companies and publishers.

They must be "really" be making so little money

[failedlogic]

The music industry executives and laywers (or are they one and the same?) keeps crying a river to politicians, the public, the press and within the industry to its artists that they are losing 100's of millions a year and they can barely keep the boat aflot.

Meanwhile, they have hoardes of nerds illegally searching for file sharers. Have hired briefcase salespeople for presentations to politicians (yes there is a relationship to music here). They've also hired reams of lawyers to collect money from artisits. Have teams of people to make sure the star artists have their limos and clotes ready (sometimes the artist doesn't know they are being expensed for it). And spend millions on compaigns as bad as don't copy that floppy.

They also say that an album that sells millions of dollars still loses money.

I'm familiar with the idea of the Hollywood accouting system.

So, ummmmm... where the hell did all the money come from to do the above? Either you're losing millions a year in which case you should go out of business. Or here's a better idea: Control you Expenses!

All in all, until they can produce some numbers and have an independent audit of their books', they shouldn't be wasting taxpayers' money in many countries and they should get any media attention for their whining. I've purchased 100's of CDs in the last 10 years. You've shown no appreciation to your paying customers and I'm pretty fed up. Fact is, I'd like to say I don't have enough music and I'm always willing to buy more from your labels..... but enough is enough.

Re:intellectual property law doesn't protect creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a film about absurd zombies. That would be great.

In perpetuity? Really?

[erroneus]

I know they have all works "essentially" in perpetuity, but they are claiming "in perpetuity" as in forever? Seriously?

Among the many other sticking points, it's about time their belief in forever is changed in rather short time.

copyright war ?

[sixsixtysix]

let's do it! which offices should be firebombed first?

John Fogerty

[KingAlanI]

As part of the deal to get out of his record contract, Fogerty offered up the publishing rights to his CCR-era songs, so although composition copyright and master-recording copyright are separate entities, this is one case where they ended up more closely associated than usual. (Something similar might happen right off the bat on a 360-degree-deal.)

Re:intellectual property law doesn't protect creat

[erroneus]

To fix it is easy. Just make it so that copyrights cannot be bought or sold; only managed. Make it so that each copy is approved by the rights holder so that an accounting of the royalties can be made and paid upon sale. In short, strip away the right to print money from the publishers.

Based on myth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. I stopped reading at: ", in large part because of unauthorized downloading of music on the Internet,"
Apparently the facts don't matter, the memes do...

I'm an Independent Software Contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

And the way my lawyer explained it to me is: If you are an independent contractor, absent a specific contract giving exclusive rights to the entity hiring you, you retain copyright to all works created. IANAL - but I got the info from one.

Re:I'm an Independent Software Contractor

[TheSpoom]

Yes. Your lawyer is correct. I'm saying the assignment of rights is in their recording contract.

return of the oldschool musicians

[KingAlanI]

I don't think this is specific to pop per se. (though maybe that depends on how you define "pop": "a specific genre" or "anything besides classical, opera, et cetera.")

Yes, there are many oldschool musicians that are still active. (whether or not they stayed active all this time).
Yes, some still "have it", some don't.

Also, even those who are still around and still good sometimes shy away from their old material

The artists for the most part were willing parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Most recording artists sign contracts that specifically state that the recordings they make will be considered "works for hire" and the copyrights will remain with the record companies "in perpetuity." Obviously the record companies get no sympathy here (...and I'm sure they many don't deserve any), but in most cases, this is something that both the record companies' and the artists' attorneys foresaw and agreed to. Willing parties, not victim and abuser. It is true that the system and contracts were designed by the industry, but the artists had free will when they entered into those agreements.

Also, to the remaining few who say that unauthorized downloading did not hurt sales and that there's no evidence, use common sense, there is a ton of statistical evidence that shows that is exactly what's happened. Saying that the reason is that the music coming out now is bad is ridiculous. The quality of the music has never correlated with sales.

Thank you!

[glavenoid]

Thank you!! That fixed it.

However, doing so was a real pain in the ass since I have a tiny netbook and the user options "overlay-dialog" shit was nearly impossible to use. Ironically I needed to the un-check "small screen" option which was needlessly difficult because said dialog box wouldn't fit on the damn screen. Why even have a small screen option?!

Alright. Done complaining, save for that in my .sig which I'm not going to attempt to fix until I get a bigger screen or the admins fix these weird layout issues...

Incidentally, I haven't posted many comments recently, and this new posting system is nicer than the last.

Re:intellectual property law doesn't protect creat

[camperdave]

One thought I had is that there be two types of copyrights. One type covers private works. This type applies by default and is unregistered. The other type is for commercialized material. In order to perform a work, or release for sale, a copyright must be registered (for a cost). This registered copyright gives the owner rights for one year. At the end of each year, the owner may re-register the work if they intend on continuing to perform or sell it, granting rights for a further year, or the work enters the public domain. Each year the registration fees escalate as a percentage of the previous year's fee.

So, if the starting fee was $1, and the fee increase percentage was 50%, after the first year, it would cost $1.50 to continue to market the work. After the second year, $2.25, etc. At the end of 50 years, it will cost 425 million dollars to renew the copyright. At 70 years, over a billion dollars. The longer the work is on the market, the larger the fee to keep it on the market. Eventually it will not be worthwhile for the owner to hold onto the copyright, and the work will then become public domain.

Rights to a work may be sold to another, but once registered, the copyright fee never gets reset.

Deficit, Social Security, & Medicare Saved

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn them in to the IRS. They can pay up (with penalty) for all those big "paychecks" they cut over the past 35 years that they claimed as payments to independent contractors.

Re:The artists for the most part were willing part

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no.

Most recording contracts specifically state that the work product (a "sound recording") remains the copyrighted property of the atrist/creator. The record company is purchasing a license to make mechanical reproductions of that sound recording for the purpose of engaging in commercial trade by selling those copies. The payment for that usage right is in the form of royalties paid based on unit sales. There is NO transfer of copyright; merely the assignment of certain, specifically defined rights.

Yes, there are a few contracts where the artist is performing a work-for-hire. Motion picture and TV commercial scores come to mind. But the basic "band cuts an album" deal is virtually always on a "mechanical reproduction rights license" basis, with the copyright specifically retained by the artist.

And you can argue in the face of many recent studies that show P2P sharing (including torrent streaming) has negligible effect on unit sales of commercially produced music, but that doesn't make your "common sense" statement true.

nic

All in all, you're all just pricks with no balls

[SlippyToad]

The RIAA is on the verge of complete irrelevance. We don't need your expensive studios when a laptop, some microphones, recording interfaces, and a low-cost but excellent DAW are available to anyone who can save up a couple thousand for them. And we don't need your distribution channels . . . we have facebook, bandcamp, itunes, a million others.

The middleman looks so sad trying to get between his customers and his suppliers after they figure out they don't need his sorry ass.

5 Years and you're out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make music copyrights 5 years and be done with it. That's plenty of time to hock your wares this day in age.

This is a complete misrepresentation of law.

[Anonymous Coward]

These labels are WRONG about the "employment status" of these recording artists and musicians. They will be found to have been unfit as employers, contracts will be found to be unconscienable in a myriad of cases, and many will probably be found to have committed all sorts of illegal practices if they want to dig in and maintain this fabrication.

Courtney Love talked about this...

[rekoil]

http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

Apparently a "work for hire" provision did get slipped into federal copyright law - and I mean literally slipped in while no one was paying attention. After Love's speech brought attention to this, the provision was repealed a year later.

So unless the laws get changed again (and the RIAA *will* try), the artists have the upper hand. Sad to imagine how much they'll spend in legal fees to get to their money though.

Re:All in all, you're all just pricks with no ball

[Mass Overkiller]

Let me add my experiences. I am a recording artist. You've never heard of my band and I'll tell you why. Years ago my band attempted to sign with a record company. The contract was handed to us and we did some due diligence and had a lawyer look it over. Essentially, our lawyer told us not to sign it if we really cared about our music. Heres how our contract read: The company owns the recording and we license from them the ability to play the music live in a venue. We retain creative control insofar as what is actually recorded is what we want, and we retained artistic control as to the "album" cover and layout. We were specifically forbidden to reproduce the music ourselves - As if we were mere customers buying a CD from a store. Customers rights and our redistribution and reproduction rights were the same. I could not for example, upload our CD to Napster (at the time). We were "advanced" a fee to pay for the recording and marketing of our CD. This was to be repaid by CD sales and gate revenue. Any "overage" was paid to us via royalties only. In the details, this section stipulated that the Company was to be paid first for the recoup of the Advance, and were were specifically forbidden from viewing the Company expenses. We were also forbidden to sue the Company if for whatever reason they didn't pay the Advance. We could not sue in the case that the Company needed to change or otherwise modify our "recorded" work for some purpose (ie: to "edit" a song for radio play). You might think this goes against out "right" to retain artistic control. But we only control what was "recorded" and not the distribution of the material. Thus, if the Company wanted to edit our song, they would "sell" it or distribute it to whoever, and thus they can then edit the song because they control the distribution copies. If the Company broke the contract (ie: didn't distribute our material for whatever reason) we could only tender an arbitration at the Company's choosing - we could not sue in court. There are a lot of negatives in the preceding statements. The only positive was that the Company was an affiliate of Warner Brothers and thus, had access to a large distribution and marketing system. Our lawyer told us in layman's terms: Sign your rights away in the hope of being a STAR. Though realistically, there was no hope of being a STAR, IMHO. We opted to not sign the contract. We instead played our circle of bars and gigs for years, saving the money to build our own studio. We made enough to get some great gear, a nice computer and software, and record our own material. Which was never distributed in large channels. As we found out, large stores don't buy "independent" music. So we had out 10,000 copies sold though local channels and local radio. We made enough money to make more copies of our CDs, but that was it. No STAR. No limos. No chicks. And that was that. You've never heard of Bench Head because we didn't sell our rights out. And that is the decision we made knowing full well that we weren't going to be millionaires. This isn't sour grapes. This is just reality. I wanted to post to illustrate just how fucked up these companies are and what a "starving artist" is faced with when it comes to "the record deal".

Copyright is theft.

[Snaller]

Its also amoral and the laws should be purged - one job should equal one pay - not leaching in perpetuity.

Pirate and "donate" to the artist directly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate and "donate" to the artist directly?

' already happening ?

Re:All in all, you're all just pricks with no ball

[initialE]

All the same, just because they are becoming irrelevant doesn't mean that they don't deserve punishment for 35 years of abuse.

OK, tell me why I'm wrong.

[wonkavader]

This is slightly amusing. Not hugely amusing. This story will turn actually amusing after the artists win and some small number of artists get the rights to their songs back.

Because a lot of the artists who would be in line to get their rights back are dead. And some clever group/consortium/company is going to call next-of-kins and buy the rights to songs from them, and they wrestle the rights away from the RIAA. That company/consortium/whatever will wind up with a LOT of works, and own them for an absurd amount of time.

There a big yawning gap opening up for a second music industry to appear here.

Google tried to do it for books, but with mixed success. Wouldn't it be just hilarious if they tried it again, and cornered the oldies industry?

RIAA to musicians

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA to musicians: All of your music are belong to us! And here we have, once again, a lobby group hired by very deep pocketed special interests, arguing that the people who provide them with product, have no rights. They have already obtained legislation by providing from their deep pockets to legislators, that their customers (and others) have no rights, and when there is any dispute, or even a perception of a dispute, then they can roll out the letters 'D.M.C.A.' and its exactly like as if Joey Soprano just asked for a few thousands dollars to provide protection services to a business "lest the business burn to the ground in the night or something".

Fraudsters

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_America#The_.22work_made_for_hire.22_controversy
Or do a lookup on "riaa" and "historic use"
Fraudsters. 'Nuff said

Re:intellectual property law doesn't protect creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ? It's a Seductive Mirage.

And who cares about how long the copyright is today since they've got the DMCA which says if they wrap their stuff in any lame user restricting wrapper, the user may never tamper with the wrapper, never mind the contents copyright status. Yes, you read that right, that's a permanent, unconsitutional copyright.

copyright to protect artists ROTFL!

[kubitus]

wasn't that one of the big arguments of the RIAA regarding downloading?

Copyright is wrong

[Artemis3]

The original copyright lasted 14 years plus ONE extension of 14 more years. The idea for copyright was to put an END to hereditary printer guild rights over written works.

Before that, authors had to sell their work ONCE to the printers; and these could sell copies again and again and again without giving a cent back to the author. That industry had control over printing, because printing was very expensive and only few could afford the infrastructure and distribution to do so. Sounds familiar?

The United States of America is a country built upon infringing the "intellectual property" of others, especially the English at first, but they also stole and copied technology from many other countries until well into the 20th century, and a bit more discreetly after that.

Internet has made the industry obsolete. Physical media is irrelevant, radio and television are redundant. The powers that be, decided to alienate their customer base by declaring them criminals, thus starting the war.

The right to copy should be restored. Non profit copying should be permitted, period. And State enforced monopolies for commercial exploitation should be granted for very limited time, 5 years at most. This is the main agenda of the "Pirate Parties" of the world.

Artists never made money over sold discs, labels did.

Math FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born in 1978 and I'm NOT 35 years old YET, you insensitive clods !

Hits from 1976 :
All by Myself (Eric Carmen)
Anarchy in the U.K (Sex Pistols)
Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen)
Radioactivity (Kraftwerk)
You Should Be Dancing (The Bee Gees)

Copyrights on work for hire are different

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights on work for hire are different. The RIAA, as always, is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

If they're also saying it's not the artists' work, then their spiel about how the artists are being shat upon by "pirates" is false.

Don Henley's take

[spagiola]

The New York Times has an interview with Don Henley of the Eagles on this matter. Here is a delicious quote, right at the end, when Don was asked how he thought revocation would affect recording companies:

I don’t know. The recording industry is already in trouble and this probably wouldn’t help it any. If the recording industry had been more fair, historically speaking, to both artists and consumers, it might be looked upon a little more kindly. But the labels are sleeping in a bed of their own making.

Re:Don Henley's take

[neo-mkrey]

Where's a 'like' button when you need one?

Greg Kihn did that.

[wiredog]

If you look on iTunes you can get his re-recordings of his work.

This can get complicated....

[Anonymous Coward]

because there are so many things a record company now provides to the "artist". For instance, who holds the copyright on a song thats music was written by a studio artist and lyrics were written by songwriters without an artist in mind. There is a difference between a vocalist and an artist.

Ah, you see, Winslow...

[Pope]

...I'm under contract, too.

Invoke the Bohemian Rhapsody argument!

[fritsd]

• Artist: Easy come, easy go, will you let me go? U+FDFD(*) !
• RIAA lawyer: NO! We will not let you go!
• Artist: Let me go! U+FDFD !
• RIAA lawyer: We will not let you go!
• Artist: Let me go! U+FDFD !
• RIAA lawyer: Will not let you go
• Artist: Let me go!
• RIAA lawyer: No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
• Artist: Oh mamma mia, mamma mia etc. etc.

U+FDFD codepoint is B'ismi'llah AFAIK. Learn something new every day.

Even funnier . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what's really funny is how you fucking thieves are so concerned with whether you're stealing from the record companies, or stealing directly from the artists. Sounds like you prefer stealing* directly from the artists, huh?

*You can insert whatever euphemism you want. I'll continue to call it what it is.

In summary

[Anonymous Coward]

If ever there was an example of capitalism exploiting and brutalising the workers, it's the music industry. If any young artists out there are reading this, take this advice: NEVER SIGN WITH A LABEL!

Success in music is playing to audiences and selling recordings, it's not a sign of success to end up owing more than you were originally advanced by a label, no matter how much airplay you're getting. You can play to audiences by booking your own gigs or by engaging a trusted individual as a business manager. You reach an audience better in lots of smaller clubs than you ever will in a stadium, too. One of the most common regrets of the super famous - "I miss playing the small clubs."

As for selling recordings, you don't even need to make CDs anymore. Just get onto iTunes and other stores via Tunecore or CD Baby and put posters up at your gigs, "Available on iTunes." Again, getting the song on the radio is next to impossible these days, but getting a striking clip on YouTube is relatively easy, just ask OK Go.

You own your music, so own your own music business, too. Super fame is overrated, look at it's toll on some artists. You don't need the labels. It doesn't matter what copyright law allows labels to do to their artists if you're your own label. Have fun, make music, maybe make a living (if you're hard working and lucky enough) and tell the next A&R rep to come to your gigs to go fuck himself.

Never fails to amaze me

[Alimony Pakhdan]

How many people here commenting about labels, contracts and bands and what "should" be who obviously have never actually done anything in the field, never played a show, never toured, never been on either side of the table for a recording contract and obviously never been in a studio.