Copyright Time Bomb Set To Go Off 402
In September we discussed one isolated instance of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination. Now Wired discusses the general case — many copyrights from 1978 and before could come up for grabs in a few years. Some are already in play. "At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion. ... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the labels' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they're suing other companies for using, they're in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride."
Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting times (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day. Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.
I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise. I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole. I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!
Will there be a kaboom? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.
On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another? I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Making the summary not completely backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
At a time when the public hasn't gotten anything added to the public domain since the 1920's, the first thing they need is for valuable copyrights from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, much of which is still loved by music fans of all ages. Thankfully, the wheels are already in motion. ... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the musicians' best strategy to make use copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme advantage, they're in for a quite lucrative ride.
Seriously, the summary would suggest that this is bad news. It's in fact good news for everyone but record companies.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this is bad either. As for publishers... If they really feared this, they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract? YUP!
Oh wait you mean they wouldn't have made so much money off the artists? What? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it wasn't your money?
Hopefully, in ten years, the RIAA member companies will exit the music business, or be bankrupt. If you work for them, please find other work now. I'm so against them getting a bailout then.
Re:Someone please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a matter of leverage. By changing the copyright act, they changed deals which were already closed.
If it was 1970, and I gave you my work for 35 years before it naturally fell into public domain, then in the 1990s, the law changes it to 75, shouldn't *I* have some say about it?
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly the term publisher masks a host of leeches that feed upon the artists and the public. In essence if you get a contract you can subcontract everything and simply sit back and get a free lunch.
Going back in time a bit the publishers had to hire a scribe as an employee to prepare the original and then print it and issue it themselves. Those days are long gone. Today even the big name artists often gain nothing at all from record production but make their entire living from in person appearances and the sale of T shirts and other gimmicks.
Re:Its time to think about the future, not the pas (Score:1, Insightful)
This needs a campaign (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not volunteering to run it, mind you, but this calls for a campaign directed at the artists, to encourage them to get out from underneath the RIAA's thumb. Extol the merits of Creative Commons, of self-publishing, etc. Set up a website keeping track of those artists who've reclaimed their copyright, and cheer with each new name. It looks like there is a time limit on this, and some of the artists might not hear about it or might not think it's important.
It won't work on everyone, and some artists might be just as bad or worse than the RIAA, but overall the more copyrights the RIAA loses, the better it will be for everyone (except them).
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
If we buy only works with reasonable term lengths, then long copyright terms will die.
I know, right! I mean, I just heard some teenage girls talking about how they wanted to buy this new Taylor Swift album, but weren't sure of her stance on intellectual property rights and copyright term retention so they didn't feel comfortable buying it as it would send the wrong message to the recording industry and OMG Billy just bought it, I wonder if I buy it he'll think I'm cool!
Re:Will there be a kaboom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to miss the point. EVERYTHING in your post is based on the idea that "copyright" is something innate or profound, existing outside of a legal structure. It is not. Copyright exists ONLY within a legal structure that decrees it so. The point of copyright is to encourage the creative arts by granting the creator a monopoly for a limited time, after that point others may use that art. Without that, and artist HAS NO RIGHTS to the product of their work. If you write and perform a song, what stops another musician from performing the same song the next night? Nothing except a law. Copyright is a mercantilist replacement for aristocratic patronage - it allows artists to make money within a capitalist system. But that's ALL it is.
I am not in favor of abolishing copyright - I believe, in the main, it does what it is intended to do. But the current terms of copyright are so outrageous as to encourage this bizarre idea of "ownership" of something that DOESN'T EXIST. I'm sure the Eagles worked their asses off thirty years ago to create that song, and I believe they should have been compensated for it. Then. and for some period of time thereafter. But thirty years later? I believe it is bad public policy, which is the only place that this "right" exists.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that if the Eagles decide to be greedy about their intellectual property, it puts me in the position of having to reconsider my desire to own Eagles music. If Sony entertainment decides to be greedy about "their" intellectual property, it puts me in the position of having to reconsider my desire to own the music of several dozen artists.
If the Eagles want to dig their own grave, that's their prerogative.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:1, Insightful)
They dont mind bilking their fans when they go on tour...
For instance?
Not disagreeing or anything, but an accusation like that requires more than just a statement in passing to be taken seriously.
Re:Will there be a kaboom? (Score:1, Insightful)
"i could care less" now that implies that you DO actually care......
now if you said "i couldn't care less" then that would be more on the spot and correct
while i agree with the sentiments of your post the let down was.....ESPECIALLY for an academic, the poor use of phrase.
mod me down... call me a troll.. whatever.. but in this wee matter i am correct i just don't get it when people say "i could give a shit" or " i could care less" an exception being "like i could give a give a shit"
all i can say is i COULDN'T give a shit and COULDN'T care less if you mod me down for it.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, their concerts are probably under-priced, not over-priced. Long line-ups, same-day sellouts, and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets. You might not think the tickets, merch, etc are worth the prices they charge, but clearly other fans do, and there's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
When either power or money becomes concentrated, the people's liberty shrinks. I'd only go after the the megacorps on your list. Also 35 years is too long. That exceeds the lifetime of many artists (from the time they wrote the song to when they die). Look at the Beatles. Many of them died before the thirty-five year timespan ended, and that's just not right.
14 years (Original 1790 Act) would be better.
Re:Someone please explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its time to think about the future, not the pas (Score:5, Insightful)
Both the record label and the musician are out to make money. The musician is the ultimate arbiter of how much they are willing to sacrifice for the easy money that the label is promising. While I'm not a fan of most record label tactics, I don't hold them solely accountable for their actions. If they didn't have so much desirable content, they wouldn't be able to be such dicks and get away with it. They don't create content, the musicians do. So, in my eyes they are equally culpable for the likes of the RIAA.
No one is entitled to the millions of dollars that some musicians can pull down. That they are willing to sell their soul for that possibility says a lot more about their character, than about the character of those purchasing said soul. No one in this day can honestly say that they didn't know the reputation labels have for screwing over musicians. If you enter into contract with them it is at your own peril.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I find it really funny how some people can think that voting doesn't work (voters can't influence Governments to do the right thing), but at the same time think that people can vote with their wallets (influence companies to do the right thing)...
Voting doesn't work if there are too many stupid/ignorant voters. Whether it's voting with wallets or with ballot boxes.
Re:Will there be a kaboom? (Score:3, Insightful)
No one has claimed that making a pop hit is easy. Indeed, that's utterly irrelevant to the claim that copyright terms should be no more than a few decades.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of new material. Either shorter terms are incentive enough for artists to create works like "Hotel California" or not. At the time the song was written, copyright was for 28 years, renewable once, and so would go in the public domain around 2032 (still some years off). So, at least, it is obvious that the Eagles felt that 56 years was incentive enough.
In all likelihood, they would have felt incentive enough to write and publish the song for only 28 years protection, but this is just my uneducated guess. Let's ask about you: do you honestly believe that, were terms shorter, you'd feel little incentive to produce your music? If not, then what is the purpose of such lengthy copyright durations? This is a right granted by the government to the artist for a particular purpose, namely, to encourage the production of works. Unless longer terms have an actual effect, then they are not defensible. (Retroactive term extensions are even more implausible!)
Note: The Europeans have a different view of copyright. They regard it as securing the natural rights of the content producer in law. But that's not the American legal view, which has (like the UK) recognized copyright as a granted right intended for a practical purpose.
Re:Someone please explain (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that yours is a reasonable point of view. I rest my case based on my interpretation of the copyright law from a non-lawyer POV, aka my ramblings. Read at your own peril.
The copyright is granted by the state for a limited number of years. The duration is, I would say, established at this point. When the author signed it away he knew it was going to last a fixed time. What did he sign away "the whole copyright I was granted" or "the 35 years of copyright I was granted". At the time there was no difference, so he is given the opportunity to specify now.
I will partially reiterate, to clarify, using a car. The state grants you a car for your artistic merits, you sell it. The state decides you also deserve a sound system for your car. Who gets it, you or the current owner of the car?
I think it is unclear, thus the option to renegotiate.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:1, Insightful)
Newsflash: different people like different music. Some folks like "clasical" music - I don't. You don't like The Eagles. I do. That's why there are varying musical styles out there. You get to chose. I imagine this ear rape of what you speak is in the ear of the listener (eye of the beholder and all that).
Re:Will there be a kaboom? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. That's not the same thing.
Physical ownership exists because because there is only one of each thing, and only one person can use it at one time.
So a government comes along and says 'This is yours, even if you aren't possessing it', e.g., if you set it down for a second. Or it's what you sleep on.
Possession is, if you will, an inherent property of the universe. Everything that exists can have zero or one people in control of it. 'Property ownership' is just a way to continue 'possession' without actually possessing it, because, frankly, no one wants to carry around all their stuff all the time.
Land ownership is loosely related. It started with the concept that part of the ground, where you planted something or built a shelter, was yours. Admittedly, it's expanded past that point, and there have actually been quite a few people who want to 'correct' this back by taking land that no one's done anything with away from the owner.
Even really indirect ownership, like stock ownership, is still 'There is something that exists, and control over that thing needs to be decided, as only one person can actually 'control' it.'. The thing that exists is the physical assets of the company, and the control is an amazingly indirect mess, but it's still there in principle.
Compare to copyright, which doesn't have anything to do with possession or things that actually exist and can be controlled. Copyright is the ability to stop other people from doing things with their own stuff, like singing a song with their own mouth.
That's why people have ownership of a copyright, not ownership of a song. You can't actually own a sound pattern, that is not property that actually exists. You can, however, own the government-issued right to stop other people from replicating that pattern it.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:1, Insightful)
Not really the next best thing - this is just one gang of millionaires getting stuff from another gang of millionaires, when the stuff in question should already be public domain. The Eagles can lobby Congress for perpetual copyright just like the *IAAs can.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Valid point and it's a tricky argument. Obviously it is nice to be able to take care of your family in the event of a tragic situation occurring.
How about the estate gets the copyright for the duration of the original copyright? Lets use the 14 year copyright the GP mentioned.. if the artist dies ant there are still 9 years left on the copyright then the estate could retain the copyright for 9 years. If there is only 5 months left then the estate only gets the remaining 5 months.
This way, the copyright is honored to it's entirety and the estate benefits, assuming the copyright hasn't expired already. True, it would suck if the copyright only had a month left on it and the holder died and didn't leave much for his/her estate but that could be chalked up to bad planning (for emergencies) as the copyright has already payed out as much as it was ever going to.
Much of anything more, I'm afraid, could be easily abused (as it has been already). We could use the argument that there should be an extension so the family can continue being supported... but then what if a corporation gets the copyright.. just think of all the people working at the corporation and their families....
Copyright should not be a retirement plan.. not for the artist and not for their estates or corporations.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
"The cost goes into marketing the band, producing music videos, large international tours, studio engineers. You've got to make millions of CDs and distribute them internationally. A graphic artist has to make the cover. Photography of the band."
Most of that crap is unnecessary and is simply there to fuel the fattened industry. The way I see it, most of the marketing is only there to recoup the cost from, well, most of their marketing. Do you honestly think that fans would know or care if the pictures on their favorite bands website weren't the result of a $10,000 photo shoot, but were instead taken by fans at a concert and uploaded to Myspace?
I just find it really hard to believe that if Miley Cyrus were to record a track on her own, upload it to her blog, and sell an unencumbered version of it for $1, she would make no profit. That cuts out graphic artists, distributors, agents, CEOs, secretaries, RIAA lawyers, brick and mortar stores, promotion companies, and marketers, and yet the product is the same.
So all you've proven is that there is lots of money in the industry. You haven't defended it being there, and you haven't even really argued against the parent's point which was that this money isn't being used to improve the product. Well, actually, I suppose that only holds true if you assume that the product of the music industry is music.
So in a way I guess you HAVE argued your point, but only by pointing out that the point of the music industry isn't to produce music. And that in turn kind of proves the parent's overall point, which was that this money (and really this industry) doesn't deserve to be there.
tl;dr Right now the RIAA doesn't serve to produce better music, more music, or even insightful, innovative, and interesting music; it simply uses its resources to convince stupid people to buy their crap. The 'greed' part comes when they pretend that they're necessary.
To the overpaid marketer in the corner going 'But that's my JOB you're talking about!': I don't give a shit; get a real job you manipulative parasite.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you see what selective quoting is capable of? Kind of like how you removed the section about him being happy to pay directly for their copyrighted works....
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music that goes to fund lawsuits against music lovers could theoretically then go and buy music from the Eagles
That depends, are they theoretically offering quality MP3/Ogg/whatever, or is it gonna be RealMedia DRMd crap? Because one of these things is not like the other.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its time to think about the future, not the pas (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah, whatever. The central issue is copyright law. Historically, whatever an individual or corporation creates is eventually coopted into the public domain. The central question is, when should that happen? Should copyright entitle someone to a monopoly on his idea for five years, ten years, 15 years, or 20 years? Bear in mind - NO SANE COPYRIGHT was ever intended to entitle an author to a steady income for generations to come. Only since corporations came into the picture have copyrights been extended again and again. Corporations have no "life expectancy" comparable to an individual. In effect, the entire reasoning for a copyright has been preempted by the corporations. The goal is to have a copyright continue into perpetuity, so that those corporate fatcats can continue cashing checks forever.
Rant on corporate America? I didn't - yet. Would you really like me to get started on one? Perhaps you are completely unaware of the recent financial meltdown, due to unbridled greed? Maybe you're not up to date on banking schemes that are raising the interest rates on loans that have been outstanding for years? Oh man, you really don't want to get me started on a real rant.
But, back to those artists. Yes, they work for people. No matter whether the money is channeled through a corporation or not, the PEOPLE who like their music pay them. What the people don't like, they don't pay for, and what the people like, they will pay for. It's really that simple. And all of those creative works are supposed to belong to the people, eventually.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
So artists are the only ones to get a government enforced and mandated estate? When I, or anyone else who isn't dealing with eternal copyrights, die my estate will consist of my assets and savings, minus debt. When an "artist" dies, their estate is assets and savings, plus a government mandated money tree. There is nothing saying "artists" can save up money and leave it to their children just like the rest of us. I don't see why "saving money" is an onus that "artists" should be saved from?
Also, this is a bit of a misnomer, since most of these "artists" copyrights are not making money for their children, they are making money (for all eternity) for large corporations that had nothing to do with creating music in the first place.
Does Arkham House (for example) really deserve to have the rights (and thus get a cut) of most of H.P. Lovecrafts works? Why the hell did they do to deserve such an eternal money maker?
Personally I think copyright should be limited to the life of the "artist", and completely non-transferable. And if you opt out of the non-transferable bit, it should be a flat, non-renewable, 30 years. I know this will never happen, so in the spirit of compromise I like the idea of a 15 year copyright, with one free extension, and after that all extensions cost a rising amount of money (based on the market value of the property).
We forget that copyright was not created (at least in the US) for the good of the artist, but for the good of the public.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you see what selective quoting is capable of? Kind of like how you removed the section about him being happy to pay directly for their copyrighted works....
THere's a huge gap between saying "I will pay for this music if I like who is selling it, otherwise I shall take it." and saying "I do not like who is selling this music, therefore I shall do without."
Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.
QFT. The alternative to buying music is not "I take it anyway because I want it, BUT I RESPECT COPYRIGHT AND ARTISTS". It's "I didn't buy it because I don't like it."
The folks who espouse the former are just rationalizing their desire for free stuff, but hedging their bets on peoples' perception of them by saying "but I respect the artists, it's just those mean record labels!"
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
When an "artist" dies, their estate is assets and savings, plus a government mandated money tree.
IP seams to be treated like any other asset, just like a business, farm land, collectibles, etc. IE it has a present value, some expected return that is not guaranteed, just like any other asset.
The beetles are a good example, they created a business to hold the rights to their albums, so that the revenue wouldn't be taxed as income (lower than the 90% tax rate), but @ capital gains.
If it ceased to have value the day a artist died, then the value of that asset would be greatly reduced, thus greatly reducing the value to the artist. It is very unlikely they could have gotten $47.5 million for this "IP" business if the assets could disappear overnight, it is even more unlikely that older artists, or those with shorter lifetimes would get much investment interest (IE a publisher) without some minimal time frame.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure...and how much money did they have to spend to make Miley into an OMG MUST HAVE!!!!1!1!! "talent"? Looking around, I don't see a lot of future Led Zepellins, Doors, Pink Floyds or around...there's an overwhelming amount of money wasted in foisting crap on us, but it's easier (and therefore cheaper) to manufacture an image than to find, nuture & promote a legit talent. This system is corrupt and broken, & it does rape the artists, but it *would* require significant investment by the labels even if were run honestly.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
If you buy music as an investment, it's likely that you're also buying stuff that never becomes valuable. What's your average return rate? Is it better than the stock market? If so, I salute you.
In any case, this is irrelevant to most people, who buy music to listen to, not to resell.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe even software? I mean, why not?
So can copyright assigned to the Free Software Foundation be taken back? How would that affect the license that the software was released under? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html [gnu.org]
Re:Interesting times (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day.
And a guy who plays the guitar is qualified to have made better business decision how exactly? Artists willfully sign up for what a label offers. There is no gun to anyone's head. The market conditions set the price and artists have been free to take it or leave it since the first publications of recorded music. These same artists you've chosen to treat like victims reaped just as much benefit from the system as those who publish, distributed and advertised their product but the artists got away with not doing the heavy lifting. Independent publication has been going on forever and a lot of the artists you hail as victims of this system did actually publish their own work for a few releases and later turned towards labels for their services. You *can not* tell me that these artists who took this route didn't do this for a reason. Think about it for a moment, please.
Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.
This is far from new and most of the artists in the same ilk as The Eagles have already done the indy route with various results. The reason that many of them are still known today and their 30+ year old music still has value has more to do with the labels than the merits of the artists. I've seen tons of good artists go by the wayside who had as solid a product as anyone else but just didn't have the right distribution and advertisement channels to take real advantage of it. It sucks that it happens and the internet has gone a long way to eliminate the need for this but it's still a truth that simply could not be ignored in it's time and day.
And I hate to tell you this but an indie artist who has a poor album would feel lucky to be "bent over" by a label if they have a poor selling album. The financial set backs that happen to an artist releasing a poor selling product is much heavier than them simply being booted from a label. Again, this is changing but for the most part even today a lot of artists would never see a properly produced and marketed album without some assistance. Financial backing is a make or break watermark in a lot of musical careers.
I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise. I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole. I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!
Yeah, I've tended to listen to more indy music than anything else too but at the same time I think if labels become too standoffish too soon that there will be talent that will slip through the cracks. I guess it happens in just about every market.
But at the same time I really don't know how much of a real victory this is. The Eagles are going to do well because they're established and the truth of the matter is that it's just a copyright changing hands. From the man-on-the-street prospective it's not really going to open up anything that isn't already there today. The Eagles made a conscious decision to give up their rights when they signed in the first place. I feel no sympathy for people who make a bad decision and certainly not to the point that they deserve legal protection. Don't think for a second that if The Eagles see a way to twist copyright to their favor for additional gains that they won't jump on the chance. Actually, if you stop and think about it that *is* what they're doing with this maneuver. The label took a risk, The Eagles will get paid and we won't see anything come out of this in a real tangable fashion.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope. It costs nothing to make and manufacture a CD. It doesn't cost them to press them, doesn't cost anything to print up the inserts, to ship them. NOTHING. I mean, it can't cost them anything, or else it would be cheaper to distribute electronically and I'd be able to buy an electronic copy cheaper than a hard copy. Since I can't, it must not cost them anything. ;)
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
So artists are the only ones to get a government enforced and mandated estate?
No. Anyone engaging in any kind of creative work, from musicians to authors to painters to film makers, are given copyright protection. If you happen to be more technical than artsy, you still have hope in the form of patents. Furthermore, once you get out of minimum-wage employment, most 9-5 jobs have some kind of retirement plan with payouts to your estate after your death, as well. It may not be as good a payout as Bono or Brittney Spears will get, but...well, they are part of the minority that rolled the dice and won.
Also, this is a bit of a misnomer, since most of these "artists" copyrights are not making money for their children, they are making money (for all eternity) for large corporations that had nothing to do with creating music in the first place.
Not entirely. The corporations are essentially a marketing vehicle for artists who have more ability to sing/play an instrument/create a film/whatever than to sell themselves directly. If you take away the whole **AA lawsuits over P2P networks, I don't really see the difference between labels and venture capitalists investing in bright, young technology entrepreneurs who got a great idea, but didn't have the resources on their own to reach the market.
Does Arkham House (for example) really deserve to have the rights (and thus get a cut) of most of H.P. Lovecrafts works? Why...do [they]...deserve such an eternal money maker?
Invest in publishing Lovecraft's works, perhaps? Lovecraft wrote waaaay back before the dawn of the Internet. In his era, he would have had a hard time reaching the audience he has reached with a publisher to market his works.
/.'s bias against the **AA's (and I admit, their tactics are rather deplorable), the labels and publishers are still providing value to the artists. And the public continues to purchase content from the labels and publishers because they are still receiving value as well. As long as that holds true, the labels and publishers will continue to exist.
Ultimately, no one forces any artist to go to a label or publishing house with their content. They do it because, despite
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:1, Insightful)
Seems sensible, but consider: copyright is not life insurance. It doesn't exist for that reason.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)