Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"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.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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).
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.
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..
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.
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.)
-- Alastair
because they will need them for the decades of litigation that it will take to get the song rights back.
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.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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.
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.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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!