Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

European Copyrights Expire; RIAA Nervous 640

colmore writes "This article in today's New York Times (free reg. req.) discusses the expiration of European copyrights for recordings made in the 1950s. Now "bootleg" labels can legitimately print a lot of still-popular early rock, country, jazz, and classical albums. The good folks at the RIAA are trying to establish stricter customs controls. So does this mean cheap Elvis or a diluted pool of products?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European Copyrights Expire; RIAA Nervous

Comments Filter:
  • by Kevin Stevens ( 227724 ) <kevstev.gmail@com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:37PM (#5002127)
    Does this work the same way in the US? Is older music no longer copyrighted? I assume this is NOT the case, or else P2P networks would have alot more legitimacy. Will US music ever go into the public domain?
    • Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Informative)

      by HyperColor Underware ( 628462 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:40PM (#5002164)
      Any music that has an expired copyright is of the public domain.

      However, the RIAA & MPAA and other organizations have government backing, and have extended United States copyright laws well beyond the European 50 or so. I believe the current law is 95 years in America, and it can only be made longer by our wonderfully corrupt politicians.

      Can I have like, +5 for calling politicians corrupt? Everybody else gets points for just spouting crap, and as long as they say something against the "system" they get hella points. Oh well.
      • by geek ( 5680 )
        It's 70 years with pending legislation to extend it to 100, if I remember correctly.
        • by Sonny Yatsen ( 603655 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:38PM (#5002590) Journal
          Just think. If Legislation pushes it to 100 years, then we might have to wait a few years to hear Edison sing "Mary had a Little Lamb" without having to worry about copyrights.
      • by I'm a racist. ( 631537 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:46PM (#5002220) Homepage Journal
        The problem in America is that Congress has implemented retroactive extensions to copyrights.

        What this means is that someone created some content, at year 0, with full knowledge that the copyright would expire in X years. At year (X - 1), Congress extends copyrights to (X + Y) years. Now, said content is still under copyright until year (X + Y), even though it's creator had accepted the fact that it would fall into the public domain at year X.

        This is what Lessig was in front of the Supreme Court for. Congress can arbitrarily apply a copyright extension every time a chunk of media (eg. "Steamboat Willie", owned by Disney - the first appearance of Mickey Mouse) is about to fall into the public domain.

        Clearly, Walt was okay with the idea of Mickey becoming public domain in X years, but Eisner sees things a bit differently...
        • I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening? I personally believe that an artist should have the right to his work during his lifetime, and to some extent believe the artist's survivors should have some entitlement to benefit from the copyrighted work. I think the problem lies when copyrights only benefit the businesses who bought them. However, I see no reason why only SONY music should have the rights to work done in the 50's if the artist is not still compensated in some form.
          • by I'm a racist. ( 631537 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:26PM (#5002505) Homepage Journal
            I see your point, and it's very valid, but there's a flaw in that argument. Let's use Mickey Mouse as an example.

            The root of the problem is that when Walt created Mickey, and published his film, he essentially entered into a contract with the public. He agreed that he had a specific number of years from which to profit off of his creation (and he clearly took great advantage of this). Now, the Disney corporation (standing in for Walt himself) has not held up their end of the bargain.

            The public agreed, in exchange for not using the intellectual property of Disney for some period of time, that they would gain the possesion of that property for the good of society at large. We held up our end of that bargain (sure some people didn't, but Disney was allowed to sick their lawyers on those folks, as well as use our legal infrastructure for that purpose), so where's the part that benefits us??

            Yes, it's certainly in Eisner's interests to extend copyrights (including doing it retroactively). I do not fault him for endorsing such a policy. What I do have a problem with is the way he endorses it, and the fact that Congress doesn't understand or care about the public's side of things. The RIAA/MPAA have made quite a few shady deals (Hollings isn't called "senator Disney" for nothing) in order to get legislation to swing their way. This is really what's wrong with copyright law as it stands (and how it seems to be progressing).
            • by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @07:49PM (#5003092) Homepage Journal
              I wonder if we can call the act of copyright cartels and corporations trying to prevent a work from entering the public domain [via buying laws/politicians or whatever means] an act of piracy?

              It would seem that they're taking what is intended for us, hijacking it as it's on it's way to us, and keeping it for themselves.
              That sounds closer to the original definition of piracy, than copying a mate's cd.

              Hilary Rosen and Senator Hollins are supporters of piracy.
              Doesn't that just sound right ?
              • by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @08:14PM (#5003263)
                Well, but you have to see it from their perspective. They created content (or signed acts that created content) that brings in millions of dollars a year. Why should they have to suddenly at some arbitrary date no longer be able to exploit their intellectual property? It's like building a house and after 95 years of owning your house it suddenly becomes a historical landmark and you're evicted by the county. WTF? Wouldn't YOU be a little pissed off at getting kicked out of your house and having tourists romp around it? The world operates on the principle of intellectual property more than ever today. Trillions of dollars of the economies of countries of the world revolves around this idea that a person's ideas are property and that they can exploit it as they wish without another stealing it. I wouldn't be suprised if in the future copyright expiration in the USA is abolished entirely. Don't get me wrong, I don't support this by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate.
                • Why should they have to suddenly at some arbitrary date no longer be able to exploit their intellectual property?

                  Because "intellectual property" is not the same as physical property. An idea, once published, becomes known to everyone.

                  The copyright law was created to encourage creation of new ideas that would eventually benefit all of us. The public promised to give the creator certain rights, in exchange for making their ideas public.

                  If you have some precious "intellectual property" that you don't want to share, then do not publish it.

                  Of course, anything Disney does is worthless, unless they do publish it and let people see it...

                • by NortWind ( 575520 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @08:43PM (#5003428)
                  They created content (or signed acts that created content) that brings in millions of dollars a year.

                  In case you haven't been reading this thread, the copyright holders did not create the content. The content creators (like Walt Disney) are dead and buried, or at least frozen [grimsociety.com]. Our original deal with Walt calls for the content to go into the public domain. Why hasn't it?

                  I think the house-building analogy you use doesn't fit. To me, it is more like the copyright holders are a neighbor borrowing your lawn mower "for just a week". (The lawn mower is the exclusive right to use that art.) A week later, they come back and say "I need it one week more." This goes on all summer, and you haven't gotten your lawnmower back. Next summer doesn't look so good either.

                • The problem with their perspective is that it's wrong. The idea that somebody can own an idea just because they blurted it out first is absolutely ludicrous. Somebody first came up with the idea of using insulated wire to convey an electrical charge from one location to another. Should that person be the only one allowed to do so for 95+ years? What about the first person to think of making marks on paper to symbolize words and ideas? Ideas cannot truly be owned solely by given individuals, regardless of what words on pieces of paper distributed throughout a culture say. Copyright in the United States was created as a bargain "to promote science and the useful arts," with all works falling into public domain in a limited time. When that "limited time" is defined as a length of time that completely destroys the spirit of the law (I don't consider periods of time that almost certainly exceed the length of my life, birth to death, limited enough) the public has no incentive to uphold their end of the bargain. If there was anything actually redeeming about the so-called "intellectual property" released in the US, a person might be pushed to civil disobedience. As it is, however, there would be very little to gain.
                • by Ytrew Q. Uiop ( 635593 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @11:38PM (#5004206)
                  Well, but you have to see it from their perspective. They created content (or signed acts that created content) that brings in millions of dollars a year. Why should they have to suddenly at some arbitrary date no longer be able to exploit their intellectual property?

                  Well, because their so called "intellectual property", if you insist upon the term, is built out of our intellectual property. If you believe in intellectual property, you have to face up to a commonly ignored fact: the public owns most of the world's "intellectual property" rights! Words, language, drawing techniques, characterization, folklore: all these count as "intellectual property". Everything ever created is, by overwhelming evidence, an derivative work of some work in the public domain. Hence, under the standard "intellectual property" rules, the public gets to dictate the terms under which our "intellectual property" can be used. In the US, (and many other countries), copyright law is those set of terms.

                  Disney owes the public: they were allowed to use our intellectual property, granted a decades long monopoly on their derived work, and now they want to back out of the agreement that says they have to return the results to the public's domain. That's not fair.

                  A honest businessman, (if such a mythical creature existed), wouldn't try to get the courts or the law changed to back out of a contract when it came payment time. Eisner is, and that's why people are upset.

                  It's like building a house and after 95 years of owning your house suddenly becomes a historical landmark and you're evicted by the county

                  No, it's like building a house on public lands with public funds, with the express understanding that after those 95 years pass, you have to give the house back to the public. Then, when you've enjoyed the benefits of the agreement, and it comes time to pay, you then cry "Foul!", and try to get the law changed so that you don't have to live up to your side of the bargain.

                  Even if you accept the notion of "intellectual property" (and I don't), this reasoning is still flawed. It ignores the rights of the public; the silent majority stakeholders.

                  I wouldn't be suprised if in the future copyright expiration in the USA is abolished entirely.

                  I don't think anyone in the general public today thinks copyrights are important enough to ammend the US constitution. Many people don't pay much attention to politics, much less "intellectual property" disputes, but most people in the USA get very upset when you mention changing their constitution.

                  Don't get me wrong, I don't support this by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate.

                  Your points are both well argued, and insightful. I just don't agree with them. :-) And I think that it's a good thing to be able to understand the arguments on all sides of a debate, as well as seek out the counter-arguments that go along with them. Thank you for the opportunity for an polite and insightful discussion; it's something all too rare on Slashdot these days.
                  --
                  Ytrew
                • The house analogy is quite flawed; why not try another? You have a big couch. You want to move that big couch. You call up your friends and say "I'll give a case of beer to whoever helps me move the couch". First guy who shows up can't move it on his own; then two more show up, and the four of you can't quite get it. Then one more comes and when he starts lifting as well, the couch gets moved. You give the beer to the last guy who showed up, and no one else.

                  Sound fair? It's how intellectual "property", if it really were property, would have to work. Good thing it's not. The idea of intellectual "property" just doesn't jive, for a variety of reasons:

                  • The "creation" involved is not creation ex nihilo; all authors and composers draw on previous work for inspiration and source material. Granting an exclusive property right to the last one to contribute to what is essentially historically a group effort is akin to only giving the beer to the last guy who helped lift; it makes the system morally unjust.
                  • If copyright were a property right it would be unable to expire; as you pointed out, owning something now means you'll own it 96 years from now. Yet this would cause copyright to quickly be in violation of many property-rights theories. For example, John Locke says that an appropriation of property to oneself is just if and only if one leaves "enough and as good for others". But if copyright is a property right and thus perpetual, we would very quickly run out of things left for others; as previously mentioned, "creation" of property in this sense involves drawing upon the work of others, and to do so would be illegal. There might be the occasional truly new idea, but copyright would fast reach a point where we were not leaving "enough and as good".
                  • The notion of copyright as property grants an exclusive property right in something which is non-exclusive. In the case of physical property, the right makes sense because physical items can generally only be possessed by one person at a time and the stability of society demands that some form of ownership be instituted in order to prevent constant strife over such possession; this principle is the basis of several major theories of property (e.g., Thomas Hobbes' and David Hume's). However, with something which can be possessed non-exclusively, applying such a rule makes little sense; if all can enjoy and benefit from possession of a thing simltaneously with no strife and no harm, would it not be an evil to deny such enjoyment and possession?
                  And that's just the tip of the iceberg; I've been researching the philosophy of copyright for a damned long time and while there are certainly some fuzzy areas, I can sy with absolute certainty that copyright cannot be "property" in the sense in which you have used the term.
          • by AragornSonOfArathorn ( 454526 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:27PM (#5002513)
            I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening?...

            Will having "Steamboat Willie" (or any other equally old work) in the public domain really hurt the copyright holder? Is there really so much demand for Steamboat Willie tapes, DVDs, T-shirts, cereal, and whatnot that if it was freely available it would really affect their bottom line? Ok, I'm exaggerating slightly, but my point is some media company's (like Disney's) whole operation is not going to come crashing down if some near-100 year old work is in the public domain.
            • by mendepie ( 228850 ) <mende AT mendepie DOT com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:57PM (#5002728) Homepage
              Will having "Steamboat Willie" (or any other equally old work) in the public domain really hurt the copyright holder? Is there really so much demand for Steamboat Willie tapes, DVDs, T-shirts, cereal, and whatnot that if it was freely available it would really affect their bottom line?

              While copies of Steamboat Willie leagally floating around does not directly scare Disney that much, it is the character of Mickey Mouse that does.

              Today you cant use the Mouse's image without being hounded (and loosing to) disney's Lawyers. When the copyright expires, you will be able to use the image of Mickey Mouse (as he appears in Steamboat Willy) since that image is now in the public domain.

              The potential loss of control of the Mickey Mouse Image is what gives Disney the Willies.

              You should not that this is an extreme case, it is not just a story or song that is loosing it's copyright, but a Image that is close to, if not, a Trademark. I can understand why Disney wants to protect it, but extension of copyrights is not the right answer.

          • by cervo ( 626632 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @08:47PM (#5003448) Journal
            Let's be honest here. Steamboat willy is not making disney any money. I do not know if mickey becomes public domain or not with that release, but let's assume he does.

            Disney has always made many classic fairytells incredibly well like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. Others have made the same movies in animated form, only disney's are still popular. Let's look at the anime Dragon Ball and DBZ. Both were based on the manga and made by the same guy, they were incredibly entertaining. DBZ quite probably was/is the most popular anime series ever(as said by a number of source, but probably unsubstantiated). Dragon Ball GT was a sequel to Dragon Ball Z not based on the manga. It sucked bad.

            The point? Disney is crazy, even if they lost the copyright on Mickey Mouse, in all likelyhood no one else would be able to make a decent Mickey Mouse cartoon. Disney has always been a big force in the entertainment industry, as is shown by most of the other animated fairytails not being as well known as the Disney ones. And even if someone managed to revive mickey mouse and make a fortune, Mickey isn't really making disney a whole lot with his cartoons today. The brand name recognition with Mickey is fixed for disney as well. When people see Mickey, they will automatically think Disney. So if other studios did manage to make cartoons it would be an advertisement for Disney.

            In short, Eisner is a moron. Instead of paying for lawyers and buying off politicians, he should invest his money into making a better product. Overall Disney's movies have been going downhill. Admittedly some of them are good such as Monster Inc, but for the most part the majority of Disney movies are starting to suck lately. He should spend less time worrying about nothing and more time worrying about Disney's future.
        • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:57PM (#5002727)
          I think another big problem is that the RIAA is saying that the copied works in Europe are still piracy, even thought its perfectly legal to do so in the EU.
        • by Ping the Penguin ( 620723 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @07:14PM (#5002854) Homepage
          So what you're saying is that Disney don't want their most famous character being used by any old mickey mouse outfit...


          If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress?
        • I guess it is more of a law question than a comment to you.

          I find it strange that the supreme court can enforce a law that will be applied backwards in time so to speak. Basically you are never sure if whatever you do is not going to be affected by some law in the future and you may even be sued in the future for something that was legal when you did it in the past, but now (in the future) is illegal. That doesn't make sense to me.

          Ok, extend the copyright laws, but only for new work created AFTER the law was passed. Work created earlier, will expire as said law regulated when the work was created.
      • by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:49PM (#5002255) Journal
        Well, it's in the constitution that copyrights can only exist for a limited period of time. But the period of time itself is not defined. It was left to the common sense of the legislation, back when they had some. It stood at 20 years after the authors death for the longest time.

        The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act basically allows corporations to apply for extensions, lobbied for by worried Disney execs approaching the 20th year anniversary of Walt's cryogenic freezing. So they can apply for extensions so long as they have the money to keep filing.

        The constitution doesn't say anything about indefinitely held copyrights.

        See, indefinite != unlimited, so this crap apparently isnt unconstitutional, even if this is the exact situation the constitution set out to prevent (that is, large corporations owning virtually all the copyright and using that power to fleece the public).

        In short, we will never see PD Beatles tunes.
      • by tacocat ( 527354 ) <tallison1 AT twmi DOT rr DOT com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @08:16PM (#5003281)

        IIRC it's much longer than that now. If you really want to know more detail about the US involvement with copyright munging through RIAA and MPAA I strongly recommend Lessigs lecture on Free Culture [randomfoo.net] that was presented in July 2002.

        I've shown it to a few who have been very impressed with it. I think it was very well done and quite representative of what we are seeing here and will be seeing with these Media organizations in the coming years.

    • by Uhh_Duh ( 125375 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:42PM (#5002182) Homepage
      The U.S. has very similar laws just different time frames. Our laws are here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc [copyright.gov]

      Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
      A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

      Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date
      These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

      Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978
      Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

      Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

      Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.

      For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a, "Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."

    • by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:24PM (#5002492) Homepage
      Lots of countries have copyright terms different from the U.S., some shorter and some, believe it or not, longer. Some public-domain people compiled this terrific list. [upenn.edu] Afghanistan has no copyright protection, but that doesn't mean you can duplicate CD's and DVD's there for a great little import business. The United States currently provides life+70, as do many other "evil" countries.

      Many countries have signed on the Berne Convention, which requires life+50. That could change.

      Bootleg is bootleg, though, and to bring these legal foreign recordings into the states would be illegal. When in Rome, do as Romans do. The arbitrary copyright term is a question of degree. It is hard to see a bright line between life+50 and life+70; what is really out of line in the Sonny Bono Act is the retroactive extension of copyright that was the immediate payback to supporters like Disney.
      • by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:34PM (#5002560) Homepage
        What if I use P2P filesharing to obtain public domain content from Europe into this country? Is it bootleg? What if I don't sell it? What if I do sell it? It's not like the RIAA has any claim at all to control over this content, since Europe has already released into the public domain.

        It seems that the only way to make this work is to make it categorically illegal for Americans to possess, play, or redistribute public domain works that originate outside U.S. borders, and then put up a firewall between the U.S. Internet segment and the rest of the Internet.

        This is so obviously stupid that the ??AA and Congress will no doubt make it a reality within the next two years.
      • Many countries have signed on the Berne Convention, which requires life+50. That could change.

        Wow, one of the countries listed, the UAE, lists life+25 years as of 1996. My how things change. When I was there in 1990 (Desert Storm) you could find shops of all kinds selling cassettes, video tapes, and Nintendo Famicon games. All of these were in generic cases by Thompsun, with the exception of the Famicon titles which were XXX-in-1 cartridges. These weren't tents or street vendors, but actual storefronts. This was in both Dubai and Bahrain.

        Finding legitimate originals was completely impossible.

        -sarcasm on-
        I'm glad this country has seen the light regarding IP rights.
        -sarcasm off-
  • by djcatnip ( 551428 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:37PM (#5002128) Homepage Journal
    European teenagers continue on trading music without noticing or caring about the expiring copyrights... film at 11.
    • by unicron ( 20286 ) <unicron@NOSpAm.thcnet.net> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:44PM (#5002206) Homepage
      No shit. Like Pierre and his boy Hans were sitting their at their computers with a fuck-ton of blank cd's just counting down the hours.

      Pierre: Soon it will be time, Hans

      Hans: Shut up

      Pierre: I surrender

      Hans: Don't you ever get sick of saying that?
  • So you're saying that this might actually degrade quality of songs that were made before the digital age?

    The reproduction will be near flawless; in fact, wouldn't they be able to reproduce the new Elvis Greatest Hits thing? Or by re-mastering it, do they create a new copyright on said recordings?
  • by Uhh_Duh ( 125375 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:38PM (#5002140) Homepage
    "It looks like he's shipping his grandmother a CD-R of 'Rock Around the Clock' remixed 13 times... ARREST THIS MAN!"
  • RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by der_saeufer ( 139759 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:38PM (#5002141)
    The RIAA is the Recording Industry Ass'n of the AMERICAS... but you can bet anything they'll try to get their fingers into that one. If there was an RIAE (Europe) in the 1450's, Gutenberg would have been shot and his press burned.
    • Re:RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lonath ( 249354 )
      If there was an RIAE (Europe) in the 1450's, Gutenberg would have been shot and his press burned.

      It came along later. It was called the "Stationer's Guild".

      Here's a little story:

      Once upon a time there were these entrenched powers that effectively controlled the creation and dissemination of information because it was so difficult to copy in large quantities. Then, this new technology came along and made it much easier for people to create and distribute information. This threatened the entrenched powers so they went to the government and made it illegal to use the technology except for a select few.

      Now, the beauty of this little story is that you can replace "Technology" with "printing press" or "Internet and Computers" and come up with a true story. Or maybe it will be a true story. It isn't quite true for the Internet and Computers, but that's what they're trying to do. Remember that this isn't about piracy (although you shouldn't steal musing using P2P). It's about control and this battle has been fought before and the result before in this nation was the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. It's interesting that they didn't stop at freedom of speech. Why did they mention a technological method of creating and distributing information? My guess is that they understood that a government can make speech pointless if they restrict you to only being able to actually speak. You have to be able to use the technology that's available or else your freedom of speech is pointless. Nobody will ever hear you. I believe this principle will win in the end since politicians once people explain to them that this is the same battle that was fought over printing presses 400 yaers ago and was settled in the Constitution in the First Amendment. :)
  • I thought that the 95 years was to match the European Copyright system.

    Where the heck did I get that idea?

    • Nop...the US has been presuring the rest of the world to fall in line with their copyright restrictions. Thank god they've failed :)

      As for me, I'm so damned happy about this: I love Callas, and the great jazz and blues bands/songs. They also make great 'film' music, very atmospheric/moody. Now I can put them under my homemade 3d movies totaly without fear of being asked uncomfortable questions about payment whenever or wherever I show them of.

      And what to think of actual good filmmakers, who couldn't secure the rights to that piece they wanted to have under that certain scene in their movie...now they have a few more options. This is a good thing :)
  • by Dimwit ( 36756 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:38PM (#5002145)
    Yeah, but, I just don't think Elvis sounds as good when he's been translated to French.
  • Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by beldraen ( 94534 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (risialptnom.dahc)> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:39PM (#5002150)
    I never thought I would see in my own lifetime a copyright expire. Honestly, this is an interesting feeling that I can legally use some music of my culture I grew up with without being charged with a crime to do so? Except, this probably doesn't help me much since I live in America, eh? *sigh*
    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

      I never thought I would see in my own lifetime a copyright expire. Honestly, this is an interesting feeling that I can legally use some music of my culture I grew up with without being charged with a crime to do so? Except, this probably doesn't help me much since I live in America, eh? *sigh*

      Yes. Well. I've been invited to move to the U.S. at least half a dozen times this year. No way am I doing that, I value my freedom, I value free expression of ideas.

      Kind of funny it's come to that, huh?
  • [..] So does this mean cheap Elvis or a diluted pool of products?"

    Well, both actually. There will be junk albums with 1950 hits & lot's of junk to fill up, but also there'll be good cheap Elvis albums too.

    But it said Europian rights were expiaring...Does this mean that you can only sell this music in Europe? Or only music recorded in Europe? Anyone know how this works?
  • Why would the RIAA care? First, the A in RIAA America (ok, the second A). Also, do they not want people trading legally? I see no wrong doing in this.
    • Reason they care.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jsimon12 ( 207119 )
      The RIAA belives that since you can now legally make copies of songs from the 50's in Europe that no one in America will buy their overpriced American copies in favor of the cheaper public domain European versions. So they want more control at our borders. Damn the RIAA, US copyrights should be expiring, damn the Bono Amendment.
  • Piratical (Score:5, Funny)

    by tpengster ( 566422 ) <slash@noSpAM.tpengster.com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:40PM (#5002157)

    "The import of those products would be an act of piracy," said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America, which has strongly advocated for copyright protections. "The industry is regretful that these absolutely piratical products are being released."

    I'm quite regretful that such stupidical comments can make the NYT

    • by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug AT geekazon DOT com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:02PM (#5002361) Homepage
      Think about what Turkewitz is saying. Importing public domain material from Europe to the US is piracy.

      I'm sure Neil firmly believes what he is saying, and that Jack Valenti firmly believes watching tv without watching the commercials is "theft of programming." These people live in a COMPLETELY unreal world, which is why we have to make them shut the hell up and go away, instead of letting them write our laws for us. This is why you should not buy RIAA music. Pay to listen to local bands, support musicians that distribute their own music online, ignore the RIAA-created fantasy world of big-time music and let the RIAA shrivel up and die.
      • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:30PM (#5002534) Homepage
        Well, while he may be living in an unreal world, he's also basically correct.

        17 USC 602(a) is the applicable statute, IIRC. It has been read to state that copyright holders can control the importation of their works where that importation is a part of their right to control initial distribution under 17 USC 106.

        It is inapplicable where the section 106 distribution right is inapplicable, e.g. first sale. That is, if Sony Europe sells a particular CD for a value of $1 in San Marino, they cannot prevent its importation into the US even if it undercuts Sony America's price of $20, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY SOLD IT.

        On the other hand, if they were uninvolved, as in the example of a copy made lawfully in Pottsylvania (which has no copyright laws at all), then they can prevent its import since it would thoroughly undermine US copyright laws -- everything would come in from there.

        There is an exemption to this if you as an individual import a single copy of any work at any time and intend only to keep them and not redistribute them. (There are some other exemptions too, but that's the most germane here)
        • by Genady ( 27988 ) <gary.rogers@maRA ... minus herbivore> on Friday January 03, 2003 @12:18AM (#5004326)
          Natasha: Vhat Are you doink Dahling?

          Boris: Burning coppies of that Capitalist pig Elvis' first album. Ve vill sell them by bajillions and buy a nuke from Korea for Fearless Leader's Birthday.

          Rocky: Stop right there Badinov! Jack Valenti sent us to put the kibosh on your illegal operation.

          Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a customs agent out of my hat!

          Boris: Foiled again!

          Natasha: Don't worry poopsie, I hear Saddam Husein has some Anthrax he vill sell cheap. That vill make good gift for Fearless Leader's birthday.

          Bullwinkle: Kinda makes you wonder if we're going after the wrong people for the wrong reasons don't it?

          Customs Agent: (Snapping on latex glove) I'm affraid we're going to have to search you two to make sure there isn't any contraband coming into the country.

          Rocky: Not again!
        • No, they are incorrect. Copyright violations, even importing such materials is not piracy, theft, murder, rape, arson or any other nifty name you want to think of. It's copyright violation. It's a civil offense much like violation of contract, but the RIAA, MPAA and others have slowly worked in criminal charges for many related "crimes".

          The problem is that saying "this man is a copyright violator" puts people in mind of the little guy vs the corporate giants. Saying "this man is a pirate" makes people understand the God's Honest Truth(tm)... that these are whoring, theiving, pilaging bastards who have thrown their lot in with the devil!

          The above is a rhetorical technique is called hyperbole. In my case it's saterical, and I'm honest about it. In the RIAA's case it's an underhanded trick that they defend staunchly, meant to make people think there's someone getting hurt in all of this.
  • by mcfiddish ( 35360 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:41PM (#5002170)
    Wasn't one of the reasons Congress extended copyrights in the US to bring them in line with the longer European copyrights? What copyrights were those?
    • by Caged ( 24585 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:57PM (#5002324)
      Yes, that is true, European copyrights ARE 95 years, for NEW copyrights. They didnt make the extension retrospective like the USA's act. (And oh how the *AA tried). So anything made in the 1950's had a copyright of 50 years in Europe stayed at 50.

      The retrospective extension of copyright is one of the issues that Lawrence Lessig is fighting in the supreme court. I hope for all our sakes that he is victorious.
      • Yes, that is true, European copyrights ARE 95 years, for NEW copyrights. They didnt make the extension retrospective like the USA's act.

        There is no completely consistent copyright law in Europe. In Germany, the copyright still expires 70 years after the creator's death (like it's in the US).

        AFAIK, the 95 year mark in the US only applies to works which haven't creator, and such works cannot be copyrighted in Europe in the first place (if there's no author, there's no way his rights can be protected).
  • by Rudy Rodarte ( 597418 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:42PM (#5002185) Homepage Journal
    From yahoo [yahoo.com]
  • by InnovATIONS ( 588225 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:42PM (#5002186)
    Well, what I would like to see is a lot of european bands doing their own versions of the songs as they no longer have to have permission of the original copyright holders. Many copyright holders of those older songs have been very reluctant and restrictive to allow other artists to record and publish them. so I predict a wave of creativity in ways of making updated 50's tunes from european bands. It may be quite interesting what they come up with.
    • jazz (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:05PM (#5002379) Homepage
      One of the things that send jazz into a retreat in the 1950's and 60's was that before then, there had been a lot of opportunities for jazz musicians to hear each other and play with each other. But around that time, it started getting much more expensive to go to jazz clubs. Also, the number of venues got below critical mass, even in Manhattan, so you could no longer walk from bar to bar and hear Dizzy Gillespie in one place, then Thelonious Monk in another.

      Now a lot of the jazz catalog is public domain in Europe, while in the U.S. we're limited to pre-1922 dreck like Moonlight Bay.

      It would be really cool if jazz could start to flourish again in Europe via the internet, with people being able to trade their recordings of songs, broadcast their gigs via internet radio, etc.

      • Re:jazz (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @08:49PM (#5003461)
        Now a lot of the jazz catalog is public domain in Europe, while in the U.S. we're limited to pre-1922 dreck like Moonlight Bay.

        Sorry, only the sheet music copyright has expired; for audio recordings the situation in the US is much worse (and NYT neglects to mention it). From the Public Domain Music [pdinfo.com] site: "Different copyright experts have offered very different complicated explanations, but all agree that all sound recordings essentially are under copyright protection until the year 2067. So here is the one sentence you need to remember: Sound Recording Rule of Thumb: There are NO sound recordings in the Public Domain."

  • Importing??? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tiger Smile ( 78220 ) <james@nOSpaM.dornan.com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:42PM (#5002190) Homepage

    Are their any existing laws that would prevent me from bringing something back here for personal use?

    -- James Dornan
  • My gut reaction: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glass of Water ( 537481 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:43PM (#5002199) Journal
    The U.S. is in the midst of an age of plenty, where the powerful try to engineer false scarcity to protect their roles as useless middlemen. There is plenty of food, plenty of medicine, and plenty of music. As fucked up as the RIAA is, it's even worse when, for instance, the holders of patents on medicine peofit off of the suffering and death of others.

    If you think that society will fall apart without the stratifying influence of capitalism, and that the idea of intellectual property is necessary for the continued prosperity of the US, I say that's b.s. and there are other possible viable economic models.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:44PM (#5002209)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:47PM (#5002232)

    The correct response to combat an influx of recordings imported from countries where the copyrights have expired would be to SLASH PRICES on domestic copies of these same 50-year-old recordings. Sell an Elvis CD for $3.99 and there's no incentive for consumers to pay $5.99 (to cover shipping costs) for the identical CD from a European label.

    Unfortunately, the RIAA and their constituent member record labels have grown so accustomed to using legislation as a weapon against their own sales base (that's US, yo) that the idea of selling CDs for cheap (it doesn't even have to be at a loss, they could still profit healthily) hasn't even crossed their minds as a way of maintaining their market share.
  • by dagg ( 153577 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:48PM (#5002239) Journal
    Copyright protection lasts only 50 years in Europe compared to 95 years in the United States, even if the recordings were originally made and released in America..

    For crying out loud... only 50 years?! Poor Elvis, he is going to have to stop collecting European royalties from his music. Luckily, he can still collect money from Americans. I wouldn't want Elvis to have to get another job. What will he do? Start flipping burgers?

  • by ThresholdRPG ( 310239 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:48PM (#5002244) Homepage Journal
    I see this as EXCELLENT news. The concept of public domain is vital to the creative process and it is a shame that in the US, the entertainment industry (led by Disney in this regard) is able to continually extend the "lifetime" of copyright.

    Why is it important for things to go into public domain after a time? The answer is simple:

    Have you ever seen Les Miserables?

    Have you ever seen Phantom of the Opera?

    Have you ever seen a Shakespearean play?

    Have you ever heard Beethoven's 9th symphony?

    If these things were not in the public domain, you would not be able to see or hear these things. The owner of the copyright would be able to strictly limit their production and charge whatever fee they wanted to someone wishing to perform them. Forget about community theater productions of "The Christmas Carol" as well... they'd be right out.

    In the US, however, Disney has led the charge to continually extend the time it would take for things to enter public domain. There is a not-so-strange coincidence between the date at which the law has been extended each time, and the time at which the first Mickey Mouse films would have entered public domain.

    This is one of those vital "consumers rights" issues that gets lost in the shuffle with issues of more immediate concern like DVD region coding, HDTV viewing controls, etc. However, this issue IS very important and I wish it would get more press.

    The good news here is that if Europe (rightly) is able to resist Hollywood's strong arm tactics, we might finally have a loophole by which the extension of public domain timing can be reversed.
  • by GreenCrackBaby ( 203293 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:52PM (#5002279) Homepage
    "The industry is regretful that these absolutely piratical products are being released."

    I think that quote gives a great insight into RIAA's mindset.
  • by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:57PM (#5002323) Homepage Journal
    That's another annoyance of DRM - it doesn't disable when the copyright expires. It's de-facto permanent copyright.
    • These are the concerns that EFF and others have over the implementation of DRM technologies : that they must include provisions for fair use / expiration / etc. In fact, I think that any DRM technology that doesn't include provision for fair use could get a manufacturer in hot water if a case was pursued in the courts (e.g. as class action, or by lobby group such as EFF). There is a statutory right to fair use : DRM technologies can't just override it.
  • by Crusty Oldman ( 249835 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @05:58PM (#5002328)
    Excuse me. Was there ever an EXPENSIVE Elvis?
  • This was the original intent of the Copyright ammendment to the constitution -- to ensure that works were made so that they could, after "a limited period of time", be passed into the public domain for all people to enjoy.

    When those works were created in the '50s, it was with the understanding that their copyright would only continue for a couple of decades -- not for a couple of centuries. There appeared to be sufficient economic incentives to create them back then. Now that they're legitimitely PD in Europe, I think that that's a good thing.

    It's the people who want to keep these recordings out of the public domain that are the real pirates.

  • by pop1280 ( 23132 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:11PM (#5002408) Journal
    More people need to actually help things by proofreading at: Distributed Proofreading [archive.org].

    Distributed Proofreading actually contributes to the public domain. Show the politicians that it's important by giving them a thriving public domain that they will want to supply with new works.

  • by garyrich ( 30652 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:20PM (#5002466) Homepage Journal
    I'll leave the Elvis to others, but I can imagine doing really great things with remixes and resamples using the old Maria Calls, Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk as freely available source material.
  • lessig is right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... il.com minus cat> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:23PM (#5002484) Homepage Journal
    all this means is that lessig [stanford.edu] is right [ft.com] in eldred v. ashcroft [eldred.cc].

    copyrights should foster innovation. that is the only reason they should exist. they should exist to line corporate pockets. so they should expire with the death of the author. if corporations via sonny bono [wikipedia.org] extend them unnaturally beyond the lifetime of the author, then copyrights instead suppress innovation. 50 years? 95 years? whatever. copyrights should rightly expire when the author is rip.

    this expired here but not there bs is just another example of why extending copyrights unnaturally by greedy corporations is a bad idea.
  • by ToasterTester ( 95180 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:32PM (#5002547)
    There are two types of royalities paid out, copyright for the songwriters and the mechaniacal royalty for the musicials and singers on a recording. As I know it copyright is for 25 years with 1 renewal allowed. So this is kind of a non story. Songs go public domain after 50 years. UNLESS like some late classical composers to make sure their families would be able to make money into the future would write arrangement of their key pieces. So at the end of the 50 years the family could copyright the arrangement and collect royalites on it. Assumeing the arrangement is used by anyone.

    Now the mechinacal royalites on records like an Elvis recording itself, I don't know when those actually end. All it would mean is after 50 years you wouldn't have to pay songwriters royalies, but mechanical royalities may still need to be paid.
  • by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:36PM (#5002582) Homepage
    No copyright expires in Germany just after 50 years. If a work is copyrighted, these rights will expire 70 years after the author's death. (Substitute "droit d'auteur" for copyright if you want to).

    What expires now, after 50 years, are the rights of the perfoming artists, and the those who made the records and distributed them.

    This means that only a piece of music can be copied legally if, (a) the composer, songwriter etc. has been dead for at least 70 years, (b) the original release was 50 years ago, and (c) you make your copy from one of the origianl records. (With subsequent, say CD, releases, the record company gets new rights for 50 years.)

    So I doubt that many mass-market compatible music recordings will suddenly become unencumbered by copyright law, at least here in Germany. I suspect the situation is similar in other European countries.
    • A new performance and recording of an old song would be protected by copyright. But a new digital remastering of a public domain recording isn't a new work any more than transforming a .wav to .mp3 makes it a new work.
  • by Graabein ( 96715 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:50PM (#5002676) Journal
    Quotes from the article:

    Copyright protection lasts only 50 years in Europe compared to 95 years in the United States

    Only 50 years?

    "The import of those products would be an act of piracy," said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America

    Piracy? When it's perfectly legal, not to mention more than reasonable?

    Mr. Turkewitz said, "We will try to get these products blocked," arguing that customs agents "have the authority to seize these European recordings even in the absence of an injunction brought by the copyright owners."

    In other words, only abide by the rule of law as long as it's convenient and profitable?

    I guess this just goes to show, yet again, who's really in charge [theregister.co.uk].

  • by scharkalvin ( 72228 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @07:00PM (#5002758) Homepage
    When Europeans start LEGALLY posting MP3's of this material on the internet? After all it IS legal in Europe so those countries don't have to demand this stuff be banned from the 'net. Oh it's illegal here in the states, well foo on you!

    I think that copyrights on books, music, plays (any performance or written art) should only be legally held by individuals NOT corporations and the copyright limited in term to the lifetime of that individual. IOW it becomes public domain AFTER the copyright holders death.

    Now when it comes to things like movies where there isn't a single person to claim the copyright things do get a little muddy, but since a human lifetime is about 72 years on average and a person might copyright something at anytime during that lifetime set the life of a corporate copyright on
    art at something between 50-75 years NO LONGER!!!!
  • by Twyst ( 14428 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @07:39PM (#5003033)
    Spider Robinson wrote a short story, called Melancholy Elephants [baen.com] that has an interesting take on the copyright issue. Do artists REALLY need a 95-year copyright? I can understand copyright for the life of the author, and possibly his family, but beyond that, it's a little ridiculous. I recommend reading the story .. Very good insight..
  • Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lonath ( 249354 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @08:42PM (#5003426)
    The US bitches about China and other nations about censorship all the time.

    Will the US take steps to censor European websites? (Hey! Be like China and censor websites that conflict with the -ISM your country worships even if the content of those websites is perfectly legal within those other countries!)

    Heck, if it's legal to import this music, then it's got to be legal to download it...Right? If you can sell records and sell downloadable music, how is downloading any different than making some copies and shipping them here?

    I wonder if this also means that all those old Disney movies are no longer under copyright.

    It also leads to an interesting question about a possible long term strategy. The **AA's could assert that it's illegal to link to sites legally loaded with content if the content is under copyright anywhere. They could then lobby for perpetual copyright in some other country and still effectively keep control over the Internet distribution of content forever...
  • by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @09:30PM (#5003617) Homepage
    If the copyrights expire on Elvis, then what impetus is there for Elvis to create more works if he know he can only profit from them for 50 years?

    Its the beginning of the end!
  • by DJ-Pandemic ( 620821 ) <`moc.rr.lacos' `ta' `cimednaP-JD'> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @10:24PM (#5003859)
    This is how this should work 1. A work is copywrited for the life of the author, and no longer. 2. A work is considered to be part of the public domain (IE, can be shared through whatever means available, not for profit) if the author is not actively distributing the work, or an authorized distributor of the work ceases to distribute said work (As in out of print CDs, movies... Basically, if I can't go to the store and buy it, I should be able to get it through whatever public domain channel of my choice without having to fear being chased after.) These two simple things would basically turn the market on its ear... All kinds of things would be going public domain within reasonably short periods of time because there would just be too much content to distribute.. Publishers and record companies can not afford to continue to distribute every single release that has ever been made, nor can all of these fit into. Also, its good for the authors of these works to have things go into the public domain during their lifetimes under these set of rules as it can cause interest to surge to the point that a distributor that is doing their homework would see that something is becoming popular again, negotiate distribution rights with the author, and once again have the work put out in its whole, possibly in a higher definition media, or with new artwork, etc. After the authors death, then simple supply and demand can drive distribution.. You can just get the public domain kazaa version, or you can pick up a store copy from the distributor of your choice if its a popular item, being that the popularity of the item drives the distributors into maintaining the quality of the release. This would also probably lead to a boom in restoring older works that have deteriorated or have been edited or otherwise abridged. oh well enough babbling...

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Working...