In September we discussed one isolated instance of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination. Now Wired discusses the general case — many copyrights from 1978 and before could come up for grabs in a few years. Some are already in play. "At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion. ... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the labels' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they're suing other companies for using, they're in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride."
I do not see how this is bad, the publishers obviously hasn't been innovating and now fear their own demise by their own doing. As seen by the trends of income, artists themselves are the winners and publishers has been made obsolete.
This is the next best thing to the work going to the public domain. 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 without having to line the pocket books of a RIAA affiliated label.
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.
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.
it sounds like you... care about any copyright protection they have
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....
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!"
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.
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.
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.
Ever hear of an estate? Where the assets, such as copyright grants, have value which the deceased's will can direct to benefit the surviving family members? So a hard-working artist who dies too young can still take care of his family?
Part of the problem that came out of Eldred v. Ashcroft is that the Supreme Court (for some reason) found that the retroactive copyright term extension somehow induced content creators to create more works.
In reality, this is wrong. When you create a work, copyright attaches to the work. You follow the social contract, you know your work is protected for a certain period of time, and then it enters the public domain. The extension does nothing for what I might do in the present. The new social contract for new works might entice me to create new works, but the retroactive extension did nothing.
Too young? We're talking 35 years. Unless he was writing as an infant, you're looking at a minimum age of ~50 if he died after the copyright expires. Since when is 50 "too young"?
If, at 50, you haven't provided for your family in case you die, you probably never will. If in 35 years of marketing your creation you can't make it worth your while, it never will be worth your while.
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.
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.
Actually, there's something very interesting to see here. This is may be the first time that early termination of copyrights has been viewed as a viable option for artists, and for consumers. If artists are prepared to agree to terminate their copyrights early, we can make our choices based on how long artists will hold their creations. We can choose how long we have to wait before redistributing. Before, it was an option between no time at all, or some undetermined amount of time, at least 75 years post creation.
If we buy only works with reasonable term lengths, then long copyright terms will die.
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!
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday November 16, @10:01AM (#30115418)
The music biz has known for at least seven years, probably more like a decade, that they were heading for dire straits exactly because they couldn't be arsed to sign up new talent (which takes some 10 years to mature as that is what humans need to become really good at something; compare "break through" stories, all the mainstay big names needed it, even child-prodigy Mozart), and instead chose to hash up previous fare with some one-shot novelty sauce. You know, having some young'uns re-do big hits, re-use golden oldie themes with an obnoxious beat, that sort of thing. Or selling "gangsta rap"; selling bad sex, worse drug abuse, and 'hood kill-thy-brother glory across the world. Originally that was music made by black slum schlemiels to get out of just such gangland.
The seven year figure because I attended ADE 2002 where all the european dance music bigwigs attended and they had it spelled out to them in various panels and presentations. Piracy has nothing on corporate greed and stupidity. I have no sympathy for the big publishers.
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.
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.
The works you see by the same author released by seperate companies are in the public domain.
Anyone can print the original words of Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte, Dumas. Anything publisher specific (layout, annotations, et cetera) is exclusive to that publisher. The same goes with compositions. Anyone can record works by Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, as the sheetmusic is in the public domain, but whoever releases it is whoever cut the recording deal with the orchestra.
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.
People seem to forget in this whole debate that the actual process of making an album, and then getting it heard through all the noise is expensive, whether you're part of a major label, an indie label, or on you own. It costs thousands of dollars to record, produce, and engineer an album. Then once you have that, how do you get people to listen to it? Throwing up mp3s on your website with a for sale sign won't garner much attention at all. Throwing your mp3s out there for free on torrent trackers won't garner much attention either.
So yes, money does move around the industry. The bigger the band, the more people are involved in its success. Stage hands, road crew, bus driver, marketing and advertisement agencies, promotion companies, distributors, brick & mortar stores, video crews, for-hire musicians to add additional tracks (like hiring an orchestra).
Now, because all this money is going to all sorts of different people, to say that it's just the RIAA being greedy is a little naive. These labels have tonnes of money that I'm willing to bet that other companies in this industry tried a little extortion of their own. HMV bumping up stocking prices for major labels for example.
So this money has to be reinvested into the system as people raise their prices, and bands/labels try to out-glam each other with ever more extravagant productions.
I'm not pro RIAA, nor do I think the whole industry is fair at all, but it's important to understand what actually goes on before anyone thinks there is a solution.
"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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday November 16, @08:14AM (#30114350)
A lot of older artists have realised in this day and age how much the record companies were fleecing them back in the day. Quite a lot of young artists now, realise the companies are the Devil incarnate and try their best to do their own distribution, not easy on an international stage without limited funds, but at least they can have a chance of a career in music without being bent over by a label and dumped after one poorly selling album.
I tend to spend more on music when I know I can buy direct from metal bands, direct from their sites, to the point I am actually emailling the band members for details and merchandise. I feeling I am adding something positive to the music scene as a whole. I can't say I like the Eagles much, another super-rich corp band to my mind, but it's their work and good luck to them!
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom, you know.
On another note, isn't this trading 1 stupidity for another? I mean, I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period.
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.
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.
I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more). It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years. This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law. Seriously.
Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree. I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
From the article (which no one bothered to read):
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright."
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc. Maybe even software? I mean, why not? It'd be impossible to track down the original developers and offer them equal rights to the code but this will have to be dealt soon. And hopefully not in the way they have traditionally dealt with software and copyright.
What you are describing is called "work made for hire" and in those cases the employer is considered the author. So for example, developers working for a software company could not come back 35 years later and cause trouble because it would be the software company that is legally considered the author and not the developer.
See 17 USC 101 (definition of what qualifies as "work made for hire") and 17 USC 201(b) (about how "work made for hire" relates to authorship).
What was Written can be Unwritten. Watch for a rider being slipped through on the Protecting Freedom, Goodness and Innocent Children Act 2010. Congress has gotten better at this since the last time they got caught boning creatives over Work For Hire.
No, they will find something they can name like the whole USA PATRIOT crap. For example, the US Internet Safety & Freedom Under Copyright Key Enhancement Doctrine...
Don't worry, we'll amend the secret ACTA treaty or a new DMCA law to fix this loophole. We'll probably put it as a rider to a 'save the children' act or 'don't kill puppies' law. After all, you're not a stone-cold puppy-killing, child-raping pervert are you?
Don't worry writing about it to me, I can't read it, I'll be at a Palm Island resort courtesy of Sony/BMG. I'm taking a private jet provided to me by some family with the last name Warner, you know so I can catch up on verifying the funds I got to run for office next year. I really don't know where all those bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations keep coming from.
Cool stuff. Artists will be giving publishers the same phrase publishers have been giving consumers: "You don't own the music you bought from us - you're just licensed to it"
There are numerous examples of young musicians signing very one-sided contracts and not fully grasping the implications until it's far too late.
A few of these have since gone on to become successful and have become rather more careful in their dealings with record companies. Prince immediately springs to mind, as does Courtney Love.
I cannot help but wonder - does this mean there's an entire generation of musicians who released successful work and got screwed by the record company who are now going back to their label and saying "Er... excuse me... I'd like my copyrights back, please." Could be interesting....
Good read in the linked article from parent comment...
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder.
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?
How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?
It won't. A licensed use of a song can't be retroactively unlicensed just because the copyright changed hands. Once it's licensed, it's licensed.
However, if the game companies want to use some of the same songs in future versions of the game, they may find themselves negotiating with different people this time, who may have different terms, or may even decide against licensing altogether.
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.
The copyrights aren't expiring. There's a provision in the Copyright Act of 1978 that allows the original artist (or their heirs) to terminate a copyright they sold and take it back after 35 years. Seriously, it's in TFA.
It's not expiration of copyright, it's a provision in copyright law that allows creators who have assigned their work to a publisher (or label, etc.) to take it back after a set period of time. It was designed to give creators some leverage against publishers - i.e., they wouldn't have to assign their work forever just to get it published. From the article:
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
It's not a matter of leverage. By changing the copyright act, they changed deals which were already closed.
If it was 1970, and I gave you my work for 35 years before it naturally fell into public domain, then in the 1990s, the law changes it to 75, shouldn't *I* have some say about it?
I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.
Yes, that's true.
So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?
Because the copyrights are not expiring. I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.
The term "innovative sampling" has always amazed me. I mean, it's like "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp", and "journalistic ethics" - the words don't go together, man.
Musicians have several options, it's not like you have to sign with an oppressive record label if you don't want to. Often you make far more money if you do, so most musicians bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line. That is their choice to make. I'm always hearing interviews on NPR with musicians that are reasonably successful without signing onto a big label. It can be done, it's just harder work to get your music out there.
Both the record label and the musician are out to make money. The musician is the ultimate arbiter of how much they are willing to sacrifice for the easy money that the label is promising. While I'm not a fan of most record label tactics, I don't hold them solely accountable for their actions. If they didn't have so much desirable content, they wouldn't be able to be such dicks and get away with it. They don't create content, the musicians do. So, in my eyes they are equally culpable for the likes of the RIAA.
No one is entitled to the millions of dollars that some musicians can pull down. That they are willing to sell their soul for that possibility says a lot more about their character, than about the character of those purchasing said soul. No one in this day can honestly say that they didn't know the reputation labels have for screwing over musicians. If you enter into contract with them it is at your own peril.
Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Funny)
cue "think of the children(heirs)" in 3.. 2.. 1..
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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....
Reply to This
Parent
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!"
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever hear of an estate? Where the assets, such as copyright grants, have value which the deceased's will can direct to benefit the surviving family members? So a hard-working artist who dies too young can still take care of his family?
Part of the problem that came out of Eldred v. Ashcroft is that the Supreme Court (for some reason) found that the retroactive copyright term extension somehow induced content creators to create more works.
In reality, this is wrong. When you create a work, copyright attaches to the work. You follow the social contract, you know your work is protected for a certain period of time, and then it enters the public domain. The extension does nothing for what I might do in the present. The new social contract for new works might entice me to create new works, but the retroactive extension did nothing.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there's something very interesting to see here. This is may be the first time that early termination of copyrights has been viewed as a viable option for artists, and for consumers. If artists are prepared to agree to terminate their copyrights early, we can make our choices based on how long artists will hold their creations. We can choose how long we have to wait before redistributing. Before, it was an option between no time at all, or some undetermined amount of time, at least 75 years post creation.
If we buy only works with reasonable term lengths, then long copyright terms will die.
Reply to This
Parent
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!
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Let me add a factoid: (Score:4, Interesting)
The music biz has known for at least seven years, probably more like a decade, that they were heading for dire straits exactly because they couldn't be arsed to sign up new talent (which takes some 10 years to mature as that is what humans need to become really good at something; compare "break through" stories, all the mainstay big names needed it, even child-prodigy Mozart), and instead chose to hash up previous fare with some one-shot novelty sauce. You know, having some young'uns re-do big hits, re-use golden oldie themes with an obnoxious beat, that sort of thing. Or selling "gangsta rap"; selling bad sex, worse drug abuse, and 'hood kill-thy-brother glory across the world. Originally that was music made by black slum schlemiels to get out of just such gangland.
The seven year figure because I attended ADE 2002 where all the european dance music bigwigs attended and they had it spelled out to them in various panels and presentations. Piracy has nothing on corporate greed and stupidity. I have no sympathy for the big publishers.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Informative)
The works you see by the same author released by seperate companies are in the public domain.
Anyone can print the original words of Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte, Dumas. Anything publisher specific (layout, annotations, et cetera) is exclusive to that publisher. The same goes with compositions. Anyone can record works by Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, as the sheetmusic is in the public domain, but whoever releases it is whoever cut the recording deal with the orchestra.
Reply to This
Parent
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed. The time has come for the industry to march to the beat of a different drummer.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
People seem to forget in this whole debate that the actual process of making an album, and then getting it heard through all the noise is expensive, whether you're part of a major label, an indie label, or on you own. It costs thousands of dollars to record, produce, and engineer an album. Then once you have that, how do you get people to listen to it? Throwing up mp3s on your website with a for sale sign won't garner much attention at all. Throwing your mp3s out there for free on torrent trackers won't garner much attention either.
So yes, money does move around the industry. The bigger the band, the more people are involved in its success. Stage hands, road crew, bus driver, marketing and advertisement agencies, promotion companies, distributors, brick & mortar stores, video crews, for-hire musicians to add additional tracks (like hiring an orchestra).
Now, because all this money is going to all sorts of different people, to say that it's just the RIAA being greedy is a little naive. These labels have tonnes of money that I'm willing to bet that other companies in this industry tried a little extortion of their own. HMV bumping up stocking prices for major labels for example.
So this money has to be reinvested into the system as people raise their prices, and bands/labels try to out-glam each other with ever more extravagant productions.
I'm not pro RIAA, nor do I think the whole industry is fair at all, but it's important to understand what actually goes on before anyone thinks there is a solution.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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!
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more). It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years. This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law. Seriously.
Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree. I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
Reply to This
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
From the article (which no one bothered to read):
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright."
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc. Maybe even software? I mean, why not? It'd be impossible to track down the original developers and offer them equal rights to the code but this will have to be dealt soon. And hopefully not in the way they have traditionally dealt with software and copyright.
Reply to This
Parent
Work for Hire (Score:5, Informative)
What you are describing is called "work made for hire" and in those cases the employer is considered the author. So for example, developers working for a software company could not come back 35 years later and cause trouble because it would be the software company that is legally considered the author and not the developer.
See 17 USC 101 (definition of what qualifies as "work made for hire") and 17 USC 201(b) (about how "work made for hire" relates to authorship).
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry, we'll amend the secret ACTA treaty or a new DMCA law to fix this loophole. We'll probably put it as a rider to a 'save the children' act or 'don't kill puppies' law. After all, you're not a stone-cold puppy-killing, child-raping pervert are you?
Don't worry writing about it to me, I can't read it, I'll be at a Palm Island resort courtesy of Sony/BMG. I'm taking a private jet provided to me by some family with the last name Warner, you know so I can catch up on verifying the funds I got to run for office next year. I really don't know where all those bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations keep coming from.
Sincerely,
Your state representative.
Reply to This
Parent
Tables turned (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
What I find particularly interesting about this... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are numerous examples of young musicians signing very one-sided contracts and not fully grasping the implications until it's far too late.
A few of these have since gone on to become successful and have become rather more careful in their dealings with record companies. Prince immediately springs to mind, as does Courtney Love.
I cannot help but wonder - does this mean there's an entire generation of musicians who released successful work and got screwed by the record company who are now going back to their label and saying "Er... excuse me... I'd like my copyrights back, please." Could be interesting....
Reply to This
Re:What I find particularly interesting about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of Courtney Love:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ [salon.com]
Reply to This
Parent
Re:What I find particularly interesting about this (Score:5, Informative)
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder.
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
Reply to This
Parent
Effect on games, etc.? (Score:4, Interesting)
How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?
Reply to This
Re:Effect on games, etc.? (Score:5, Informative)
How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?
It won't. A licensed use of a song can't be retroactively unlicensed just because the copyright changed hands. Once it's licensed, it's licensed.
However, if the game companies want to use some of the same songs in future versions of the game, they may find themselves negotiating with different people this time, who may have different terms, or may even decide against licensing altogether.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Re:Someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
The copyrights aren't expiring. There's a provision in the Copyright Act of 1978 that allows the original artist (or their heirs) to terminate a copyright they sold and take it back after 35 years. Seriously, it's in TFA.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
Reply to This
Parent
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?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Someone please explain (Score:4, Informative)
I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.
Yes, that's true.
So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?
Because the copyrights are not expiring. I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Someone please explain (Score:4, Informative)
If you are speaking Latin, the plural of campus is campi. If you are speaking English, it's campuses.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus [wiktionary.org]
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural_of_campus [answers.com]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi [wiktionary.org]
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html [straightdope.com]
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus [reverso.net]
Both are valid. Campuses is standard, campi is not.
*shrugs*
Reply to This
Parent
Re:the return of 80s rap? (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent