RIAA Reversal On 'Work For Hire' Legislation 217
FatouDust writes: "Wired News reports that the RIAA has reversed its position on copyright law. Last November, the recording industry lobby quietly slipped a passage deep into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, that classified sound recordings as work for hire -- effectively preventing copyright from reverting to the artist after 35 years. After protest from artists such as Sheryl Crow and Don Henley, and Congressional hearings in May, it looks like the RIAA is now ready to recommend to Congress that the revision be stricken from the books by the end of the year." I wonder what changed their minds.
uuuhhh.. (Score:1)
hurray (Score:1)
Two words: (Score:1)
--
Wonder? (Score:2)
----
But 35 years is a long time (Score:1)
Finding reasons to keep the copyright (Score:2)
Re:But 35 years is a long time (Score:3)
Sure, 35 years is a long time. But, well, you DO still listen to the Beatles? It's been 35 years and money is still to be made.
--
Think about it (Score:4)
Re:Cost of a CD (Score:2)
Has it ever crossed your mind that they get royalties off radio, MTV, and VH1? That inclusion into soundtracks of movies is a profit meduim? That the government has already laid suit against them for price fixing?
Who's paying you off?
--
Throw em' a bone... (Score:4)
This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
As if that will change anything... (Score:3)
I wonder how long they can go before people really start to revolt. And I don't just mean flaunting your copies of "For Whom The Bell Tolls (Live)" on Napster.
Re:Cost of a CD (Score:2)
irrational vs rational hate and bitching (Score:2)
Good for the rational people.
Reversed? Why? (Score:2)
I suspect the RIAA very much wants to maintain it's good PR image and it knows if it continues on its present course it will annhilate any good relations it might have had with the public. And once a reputation is built, it's hard to remove.
They'll still try for it - in a few years after the controversy has died down. But for now, it needs to get brownie points with the public and sedate the law makers so they don't level sanctions against them. They need to pull together and concentrate on which front they want to fight out first.
Crows and Eagles (Score:2)
RIAA Reverses Position on Musicians' Insanity (Score:3)
The controversial lobbying efforts were aimed at allowing the RIAA to become a legal guardian of all musicans signed to member record labels. The resulting powers of attorney would have increased its profits by billions.
The RIAA stated in a press release that the measure "would only have been aimed at crappy boy bands. We were only trying to think of the children."
Entertainer Sheryl Crow, who had spearheaded the lobbying against the RIAA, was jubilant. "I'm jubilant," said Crow. "This means I don't have to get 'SANE' tattooed on my hand now."
Free Software Foundation Richard M. Stallman was contacted by email for comment, but only responded "Worst Post Ever."
Why they did it... (Score:2)
The major record labels are greedy bastards, but I don't think they're especially stupid. Slow to come to grips with their own impending obsolescence, perhaps, but not stupid.
"I wonder what changed their minds. " ? (Score:5)
Could it be, could it possibly be, that they are cringing from the public exposure they are getting by alienating their own artists? Maybe when Courtney Love [salon.com] got up in front of God and Everybody and told people that the recording industry was nothing but a bunch of bloodsucking scumbags and decided to dump their promotional and distribution machine in favor of her own website that they actually went shopping for some very expensive guy with a ponytail who actually had a f***ing clue?
Honestly, I don't understand it. If I were the RIAA and I'd gotten away with getting such a completely disgusting abuse of copyright law passed, I'd wave it in everyone's face and scream: "look, the American People don't care anymore! they let me do whatever I want! I can steal and plunder and pretty soon I'm gonna move on to raping and pillaging!".
But some of their big time acts must have (somehow) gotten their message across. Some mentioned in the written statement [riaa.org] are Don Henley and Sheryl Crow. Sounds like some really big cash cows were threatening to go the way of Ms. Love and defect. I'd like more information on the "Artists' Coalition" mentioned in the article. It's yet more proof that the RIAA is not to be confused with the interests of recording artists, nor their profits.
The best part is Hillary won't even admit she lost:
RIAA insisted that nothing had changed and, in a written statement, RIAA President Hilary Rosen reiterated that position.
Not only is the RIAA changing positions... (Score:2)
"We did not intend to change the law and have worked diligently to assure that the issue of work-for-hire is resolved without prejudice to anyone's position," she [RIAA President Hilary Rosen] said in the release.
So they lobied to get it in, except now it turns out they didn't??? I think the RIAA is having some PR problems they are trying to fix here...
---
See, our government does work (Score:5)
Does it bother anyone that the RIAA (and the MPAA and the SPA and the AARP and the NAACP and the AFL/CIO and lots of other TLA's) are rewriting the laws of this country? I thought only elected representatives could do that.
Re:uuuhhh.. (Score:2)
No.. They realized that if they forced the issue they would not have ANY artists willing to go into indentured servitued/slavery for the next 10 years for their work. Look at artists like George Michael and Prince they essentially were screwed by their contracts (thats why George Michael didn't make an albums for 10 years).
How the hell can they call it "work for hire" that would be like hiring someone and saying they write the music and the lyrics and hire people to play them. Somehow, I don't think thats anything close to what happens...
"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999"?? (Score:5)
We need the same for our laws.
Of course I'm from Vermont, and our state is the direct beneficiary of this practice, too. We have a thing called "The Northeast Dairy Compact" that is designed to help keep small and family dairy farms afloat in a corporatist (Take that, Katz!) industrialist megafarm environment. The Northeast Dairy Compact always seems to get killed on its own by the big money on the other side. It only makes it through as an unrelated rider. But it keeps our green hills green and our scenery scenic.
Re:Too little, too late. (Score:4)
That's correct. Pick up a CD and check the fine print. Or watch the credits at the end of a movie (at the very end of the credits, usually).
That means Metallica does not have the right to sue Napster; they don't currently own the music they're suing over.
Wrong. Metallica somehow managed to sue their record company for the rights to their music, and won. I don't know the details, but as a result of a legal battle, Metallica in fact does own the rights to their music, and therefore can sue Napster.
--
BUSTED! (Score:3)
It looks like that the RIAA wanted this to slip in and maybe nobody would notice for, oh, 35 years or so. Spin control is now saying that they were just trying to clarify what was already in place, not actually change anyone's copyrights. Sure, they were just looking out for the artists, you know, with all those evil Napsterites out there and all...
Re:uuuhhh.. (Score:4)
At least that's 35 years (Score:2)
Choosing their battles (Score:3)
Right now, the music industry battling on a number of different fronts: The RIAA is going after Napster, while the major record labels are once again fighting price-fixing charges. Because of all this, the Work-for-Hire clause that they quietly slipped into a piece of Satellite legislation got the attention of the media.
By backing off on this issue for the moment, they can prevent the public hearings that congress had planned which basically would have featured lots of musicians speaking out against the RIAA, right when a number of other issues were at stake. (unlike Napster, I cannot imagine ANY musician speaking out in support of the work-for-hire clause - not even mean old Lars).
However, when the Napster thing has died down and the media has gotten bored with these sorts of issues... don't be supprised if the RIAA once again gets congress to slip work-for-hire into some obscure legislation.
Re:See, our government does work (Score:2)
strong arm squad (Score:2)
It's already in the computer industry; people just have not opened their eyes to it. When a programmer writes code, even if they happen to write the entire program, it is not the intellectual product of the programmer, but of the company that sells it. And who, dare i ask, is going to try and tell me that programs are not art and should not be protected in the same way that music should. There are so many ways to write any given program, just like there are so many ways to draw an apple. You have medium (language); you have a canvas (platform); you have art ( the program ).
It's not just the RIAA, but they are the ones leading this rebellion against intellectual property. All of the groups that support this kind of thinking should be stopped. It's reason that so many people feel like their work is nothing more than the product of the company. The worker/programmer/artist creates, but the company takes the credit.
-thinkpol
related story (Score:3)
Story is here:0 810.html [go.com]
http://abcnew s.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/napster_state00
--
Kiro
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:3)
He claimed that this was the investment the companies made that justified the high prices, and contradicted himself by saying that since no one knew what would sell, they had to have high prices in order to make up for all the ones that don't sell.
So, according to him, the music industry is like Microsoft. The artists (programmers) are of secondary importance to the marketers and lawyers to a successful product, and users are the great unwashed to be marketed to.
Essentially, these people view themselves AS the music industry, not the middlemen who frequently just get in between you and the artist because they can. Their contempt for both artists and fans came through palpably.
Here is an article... (Score:3)
the article is here [salon.com]
Everyone should keep in mind... (Score:5)
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
I don't know if it's a feature of the "Peter Principle" (people will always be promoted to their point of incompetence), or merely the fact that quiet, sincere people are less likely to -want- to wield vast quantities of raw power than sociopathic egomaniacs with a chip on their shoulder the size of the Crab Nebula.
IMHO, we need to extend "driving under the influence" laws to include corporations and egos.
Cuz it's inevitable (Score:3)
They're catching major flak from the vary artists they're 'representing' and saw the handwriting on the wall: it's going to happen no matter what. So, when you see the crowd headed off in some direction, get in front of them so that you can 'lead'. That way, you can at least have some influence on the outcome. Otherwise, you'll end up with something really unpalatable. First rule of politics.
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:3)
We did... for a very brief period, we had the "Line Item Veto", which allowed the president to strike portions of laws, thus preventing congress from passing a bill that contained the meat of a law, while tacking on unrelated "pork barrel" projects to it that the president may not agree with.
Unfortunatley, when President Clinton used it, a lawsuit was filed by three senators claming that their constitutional authority had been usurped. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs complaint was upheld, and line item veto was declared unconstitutional.
So, it looks like the only way to get the Line Item Veto would be to have a constitutional amendment... and that's not very likeley right now. The last Line Item Veto amendment introduced to the house has been buried in the Judiciary subcomitee since 2/99. [loc.gov]
Re:Crows and Eagles (Score:2)
Oh, so that's why the RIAA is letting them have it back?
--
RIAA besieged (Score:3)
With more [netscape.com]and more [salon.com] artists coming out not necessarily for Napster but decidedly against the RIAA and with the RIAA claiming in court that they are protecting the artists of the labels, one can see there is a fallacy in their argument. RIAA is realizing it is lacking allies in their widespread attacks. I kind of hope what we are seeing are death spasms, but I know that isn't the case.
Right now, the RIAA needs to be able to present a unified front of artists, even though it represents the record labels. But their lawyers know that in general the best way to get sympathy is by having the artist claim to be hurt. The one thing that seems to be genuinely true through this whole mess is each side wants to see the artist succeed. Well, then let's cut out the middleman, the record label, and let the artist do the business end. The artist can hire a marketing firm and such to get themselves known.
I believe it would reshape the industry, create more jobs, and strengthen the role of the artist in our society. It might also cure cancer, but I can't be sure of that.
Maybe, if anything good does come out of the Napster debacle, it will be the record labels and the artists come to some core agreements on compensation.
What I would really like to see is all the recording artists go on strike. But that isn't going to happen, too many artists seek fame and the joy of making the music over money.
And whose fault is it? (Score:3)
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
I think the most effective way to combat these morons (the RIAA/industry types) is independant studios. If there are as many folks out there with basic studio skills as there are that can string together 3 chords on a guitar, the balance of power in the industry will change. Especially since the equipment to make quality recordings has gotten astoundingly affordable.
The RIAA and their ilk are a zombie industry. They're already dead, they just don't know it. Keeping hacking at them, and they will put themselves into the position of overtly trying to strong arm fans (through legislation and court action) into buying their over-rated, over-priced, mediocre crap. At that point we can finish them off, since they will have to resort to the organized crime tactics that originally spawned them in order to survive; e.g. expect RIAA thugs to be breaking kneecaps of non-member studios, bands, etc in a last desperate attempt to retain control. Many youngsters these days don't realize that the MPAA/RIAA/etc were originally direct offshoots of the east coast organized crime families. That's the main reason for their close involvement with drugs these several decades now...
Tell Michael Jackson that (Score:2)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:3)
Well, that's all good and well except for one thing.
The artist still pays for all of it. Everything. "Recouped from royalties". The artist gets an advance, and from that advance the artist pays the producer (who may also get "points", meaning a percentage of the album's gross). The advance also pays for the engineer, the studio, the media, etc...yes, the studio pays in advance to get the album recorded...
BUT when the royalties are paid, the advance is deducted.
This means that the artist has now paid for the album to be made by paying back the "loan" that was the advance out of the royalties of the sale (usually only 10-15% of the album gross).
So the artist pays for the album to be made. The fact that the label owns the album is nothing but pure theft and slavery.
It is theft for the label to own it in the first place.
Aside from "promotion", every aspect of making an album is recouped against the artists' royalties, not the larger label's percentage. This can even include buying the group out of a smaller label's contract.
Re:And whose fault is it? (Score:3)
They aren't passing laws at random, waiting to receive opinions from their consituents.
Picture this: Congressman Bob is offered $100,000 from a corporation to vote to pass a law. He is shown polls that suggest 70% of his constituents favor this law. He receives a letter from a voter arguing that he should vote against it. What do you think he does?
I find it horribly disturbing that RIAA and MPAA make recommendations to Congress and have them taken as practically law. I don't think it's happening because I'm not writing my congressperson often enough. I think it's happening because under the current laws in this country bribery is basically legal. And because the population has been infected with cynicism, they take this as a given and don't dispute it.
We need campaign finance reform, and we need to pay close attention to the candidates we vote for, rather than not voting, or even worse, voting for a candidate you know little about. We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. But it's only a Republic if you pay attention to the candidates and care about the issues. Until we all do that, it's a Feudal system. The group with the most money and influence has the control.
Classical music (Score:3)
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
If you s/producer/engineer/ I'd agree. (Notice I removed 'that will sell'.) Recording and Mixing an album well takes talent. I don't know how many shitty mixes I've heard from Joe Schmoe's bedroom recordings. Other than that I agree with you.
Re:Finding reasons to keep the copyright (Score:3)
Life+70 isn't always shorter than the 95 years that a corp gets on a copyright. In fact, it's often quite a bit longer...
Re:Why they did it... (Score:3)
The RIAA is looking into the idea that another media form will replace CD's. When that replacement is "complete" (meaning the labels don't make CDs anymore, so EVERYBODY must move to the new format and replace the best of their entire collection -- just like they did w/ vynal in the late 80s), then the labels will get a whole new influx of cash for "old product".
If the Doors gain ownership of their works, they can renegotiate a duplication and distribution deal that will pay substantially more.
This is what the "Majors" fear. That they will lose the cash cow of these "classic rock" releases that 1) continue to sell in current media, and 2) will likely go back to being major sellers when the media changes away from CDs.
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
The idea that the 'music publishing industry' is somehow seperate from the 'recording industry' is patently absurd (ok, it might be patently pending absurd ;).
Re:Two words: (Score:2)
Then why is the artists' compensation such a tiny part of a CDs price? Perhaps because you're not really paying for [CD of your choice], you're paying for the Record Labels' marketing for Britney Spears and friends, and the RIAAs campaign against Napster.
Required to protect profits? (Score:2)
it's the money...they coulda been screwed (Score:5)
Usually, the company also handles distribution, promotion, touring...you name it. This all costs money. So what they do is handle all the money, take what they payed for out of the artists profits plus their cut, and leave the scraps to the artist. So If they give me a $50 million dollar contract, I may still be making less than a janitor per year, while they get rich.
If the recording is a work for hire, then they need to hire and pay me to do it. They also need to hire me to perform it on tour. In this context, they would need to pay the artist a fixed, promised amount, and that's the end of it. They can't loan me money and take more than they give anymore. No more smoke and mirrors eating away at an artist's profits. Artists didn't see this oppurtunity to sue for back wages and profit, but the recording industry did and is trying to save it's ass.
In short then:
Artist: "You hired me to make a recording in exchange for $n, where's the money you promised, beotch...I'm calling my lawyer"
RIAA: "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for them meddling kids!"
Re:Not only is the RIAA changing positions... (Score:2)
From what I remember reading on it...
They didn't lobby to get it in. A clerk added it (as an "edit and clarification") at the "suggestion" of the RIAA (a fact discovered weeks after it was in there). It wasn't even discussed in congressional committee until Hendley brought it up.
That clerk later left the congressional office and now works as a lobbyist for the RIAA.
My conspiracy-hunting section of my brain certainly sees clues for an illegal bribe in there somewhere...
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
They can be overturned by district federal courts that cover only a few states, but they can NOT be overturned by individual states. For those of you who don't remember your early American history, this was a major problem leading up to the Civil War -- individual states would attempt to "nullify," or declare null and void, federal laws. This of course was outside the boundaries of what they were allowed to do, which increased the interstate tension that led up to (among other things) the Civil War.
=================================
What Changed Their Minds. (Score:5)
I wonder what changed their minds.
If they didn't change their minds, then they would probably lose any sympathy they are getting from artists at this point.
The extent to which the RIAA makes things better for the artists who sign with them is the extent to which the artists will agree with them.
Turn artists into wage-slaves, and kiss your coalition good-bye.
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
The "Line Item Veto" that became law was restricted to budget items only. It was not a full-feature version that some people want.
The idea that this might pass constitutionality was that congress has the power to create the budget, and if congress released part of that power of its own will (allowing the president more power over what goes into/out-of the budget), that would be ok. The Constitution declares otherwise.
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
Article about artists cutting the middle man (Score:3)
"Making money in a 'copyright-free' world"
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
It's pretty long, but a great read at
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
(Yes, It's the one that was on Slashdot about a month ago)
-B
We Don't Want a Line Item Veto (Score:4)
I happen to agree with the Republicans that challenged the Line Iten Veto (and won) as well as the democrats in congress who (successfully) buried the attempt to amend our constitution to allow the Line Item Veto.
What we need is a constitutional amendment disallowing unrelated riders from being attached to legislation. This would put the power to nullify inappropriate portions of the law where it belongs, in the judiciary .
The Line Item Veto IMHO puts far too much power in the hands of the president, be he Republican or Democrat.
Re:RIAA besieged (Score:2)
--
Possible explanation (Score:2)
Also, companies and organizations like RIAA which represent them do not do what is inherently evil because it is evil. They do evil, or they do good, depending on what is profitable and on what those controlling them want. Changing times, changing pressures, and changing markets lead to changing positions and eventually changing laws.
What happens ultimately remains to see.
Be happy with our victories, work to recover from our defeats, and keep fighting on.
Re:We Don't Want a Line Item Veto (Score:2)
Meanwhile AOL/Winamp have removed their mp3 search (Score:2)
This of course sucks because that search had those nice 'Upload to Myplay' buttons which allowed you to fill up your locker without having to download the files first..
Oh well.
Re:Cost of a CD (Score:2)
Perhaps I should inform RIAA of this copyright infringement. ;)
Maybe... (Score:2)
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
Re:And whose fault is it? (Score:2)
I thought that was exactly the point I was making: in the absense of any direction from the people whom they supposedly represent, they're going to follow the lead of whoever is going to get them reelected. I agree they're not passing laws at random: the [RIAA | PETA | NRA | Teamsters] are writing the laws for them to pass.
Congressman Bob is offered $100,000 from a corporation to vote to pass a law. He is shown polls that suggest 70% of his constituents favor this law. He receives a letter from a voter arguing that he should vote against it. What do you think he does?
Probably votes for it. Picture this: Congressman Bob is offered $100,000 from a corporation to vote to pass a law. He is shown polls that suggest 70% of his constituents favor this law. He receives 200 letters from his constituents detailing their opposition to it. He gets 85 phone calls from constituents and businesses opposed. He gets 28 office visits from representatives of the "We're Against This Crap" group. He'll at least think twice before voting in favor, especially if this has happened in the past and he's had these folks then oppose him in the next election. Sure, you won't win every time, but you can count on losing if you don't even try.
We need campaign finance reform, and we need to pay close attention to the candidates we vote for, rather than not voting, or even worse, voting for a candidate you know little about.
If you're hoping campaign finance reform is the salvation, you're going to be disappointed. To implement the controls that the advocates want, any CFR is going to have to trod so harshly on the First Amendment that the Supreme Court will toss out those provisions attempting to limit third-party spending. Don't forget that we came to the present situation thru an earlier CFR that placed such restrictive limits on how much can be donated to a candidate that they're now full-time whores for campaign cash. Campaign money is a force of nature and will always find a path to the candidate.
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
Is the RIAA an arm of the government now? (Score:5)
Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that the RIAA is in a position to recommend such things to Congress? It makes the government look like a corporatist puppet without a mind of its own and without any pretence of representing the wishes of non-corporate citizens. Are things really that bad?
Re:And whose fault is it? (Score:2)
However, writing letters is less effective when dealing with the increasingly subtle and complicated issues that our governments have been tackling lately, for two reasons:
First, I don't think my congressman would believe that his position on the DMCA (for example) is going to affect a single vote, let alone the outcome of the election. Frankly, even I wouldn't change my vote based on an issue like that. That leaves me with nothing to bargain with, so the lobbyists win by default.
Second, let's look at this from a politician's perspective: These guys are not rocket scientists. Even with support from his staff, a politician just isn't going to understand any particular issue as well as an expert in the field would. I think that's a large part of the reason why organizations like the RIAA have so much influence... because they provide the (genuine) expertise that politicians lack, at the expense of objectivity. In other words, legislators let the lobbyists think for them simply because it's easier than thinking for themselves.
Maybe the moral of this story is, vote for the smart guy! There has been a backlash against intellectuals in this country since the 60's, which may be part of the problem. Despite my strong political opinions, I'd rather vote for a candidate who thinks differently than I do, than one who doesn't think at all.
(This presidential election is going to be really painful for me...)
Re:Is the RIAA an arm of the government now? (Score:2)
If it is positive legislation, they will make sure it is gutted by not providing adequate funding. If it is negative legislation, they will push it through and add their own nasty twists and turns to it.
Alright, that is overly cynical and not at all based on truth. The point is, like it or not, our legislators rely on interest groups to develop legislation. These are the witnesses they call before committees to attempt to educate themselves on the topic.
Because of how the provision got there? (Score:2)
After all, having congress know you've defrauded them and stand by your actions is probably not a good way to ensure your future existence.
Re:Is the RIAA an arm of the government now? (Score:2)
Corporatism has well and truly killed off democracy it seems.
Or maybe we should blame not the corporations but the lawyers instead. They must clearly understand how the role of government as protector of the citizenry is being undermined by their actions, yet they still do it.
pork barrel politics (Score:2)
it's a senator's best friend. maybe that's why they call it "the other white meat.
Re:it's the money...they coulda been screwed (Score:2)
Ahem, the correct legal terminology is "shark."
Re:Finding reasons to keep the copyright (Score:2)
I think it would really make more sense for them to try to keep ownership of the copyright rather than having it revert back to the artist after 35 years, as it did before this legislation passed, and as it will apparently do starting next year again. Right now they get 95 years. But if they own the copyrights, they can continue to lobby for longer and longer terms, extended retroactively of course.
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
--
Re:Classical music -- a short history of copyright (Score:4)
You are confused on several fronts here; let's see if I can help you out.
Firstly, let me point out that this copyright law only covers US artists. Secondly, since the rewriting of the Copyright Act in 1976, the US has *not* been in compliance with the Berne Convention regarding international copyright: copyright terms are far too long. Thirdly, you are actually talking about *2* different kinds of copyright: artist's copyright and performer's copyright.
Copyright was originally established as a government-granted monopoly of *limited* duration (28 years + one-time renewal of same for another 28 years). The idea was that, after a period of time for the author to gain monies from the sale of the copyrighted material, it would go into the public domain and anyone could then freely make a copy, sell it, etc.
Up until 1976, this was the case and the US was in compliance with the Berne Convention, which assured conformity with copyright law around the world. So, regarding pre-twentieth classical composers, you are, in a certain sense, correct. Those composers have now lost their copyright -- as artists. You could sit down, play on your keyboard your own version of, say, the 1812 Overture, rip it into a MP3, and sell it over the net.
BUT: a recording from, say 1964, of Leonard Bernstein conducting the New York Philharmonic playing that same piece is still protected by *performer's copyright*. You could not, for example, take a CD of that work, rip it, and post it for sale without inccurring the wrath of the copyright gods.
Now, in 1976, things changed. The Disney corporation realized that Mickey Mouse was about to go out of copyright (I am not making this up) and pressured the House of Representatives to rewrite the copyright laws so as to extend the term limit, to the term of creator's life plus 50 years. Since Walt Disney died in 1968, Mickey Mouse was now safe until 2018. Besides badly abusing the original intent of copyright laws, the US fell out of compliance with the Berne Convention, causing a rift with Europe.
Things actually got worse in 1996, when the Copyright laws were again rewritten. Besides extending copyrights to life of creator plus *75* years (MM safe until 2043), the law tightened up the "fair use" provision. ("Fair use" enabled, for example, reviewers to quote part of a work without being prosecuted under copyright laws.) Another thing that the rewrite did was to *illegalize* reverse engineering -- a common software practice. Plus it tilted the playing field in the direction of copyright owners in a number of other ways.
The bottom line, from your perspective is this: It's probably OK to trade classical music that was *recorded* before about 1920 -- that's out of both artists' and performer's copyright. Anything *since* then, however, *might* still be in performer's copyright, or had its copyright extended. Up to about 1950, there is probably a fair amount of music that *did not* have its copyright renewed. You're probably OK with that, but tread carefully. After 1950, your safest course, if you're not sure, is *don't*.
There are clearinghouses -- ASCAP and BMI come to mind -- whose sole job it is to collect royalties on recorded music. They would be able to tell you if a given piece by a given artist is still within copyright or not. You might also check with the Library of Congress, which is the official copyright depository for the United States.
Good luck!
Re:uuuhhh.. (Score:2)
In 35 years, Christina Aguilera and 'N Sync will be "retro" and on all kinds of "Greatest hits of the '90s" compilations.
I'm sure everyone had the same complaints about Abba when they came out. Cheesy music seems to really offend everyone over 14 when it was written less than five years ago. But now all my friends have suddenly changed their position on the New Kids on the Block and are thinking they're pretty cool.
Actually, I bet there were a lot of people who, at the time, thought Mozart's work was weak bubblegum pussy pop.
Re:"Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" (Score:2)
As other people have pointed out, the Line Item Veto only applies to spending bills - not law bills, and I think not to tax bills (my wife used to be a tax preparer - it's amazing the things you'll find hidden in the Obfuscated IRS Code Contest that are clearly gifts to one special interest or another.)
Also, we've got a good campaign finance law - it's called the "First Amendment". If you don't like politicians who abuse it, vote for someone else. (And if you don't like the other people running, start another political party or run as an independent.)
Re:Everyone should keep in mind... (Score:2)
I think it's okay to continue to listen to CDs I already own, but I'm still divided on whether I can continue to download MP3s by my favorite bands. I'd like to download Radiohead's next album and send them a check for $20, or $50 if it's anything like OK Computer, but I'm sure that would violate their contract, and they wouldn't cash it. Hmmmmmm.
There is no real reason to switch from CDs. (Score:3)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Record Label as venture capitalist or loan shark (Score:2)
The response isn't quite correct - successful artists do get huge quantities of money extracted from them that pays for all the costs, and often far more. But lots of records don't become successful, and don't generate enough gross receipts to pay for the costs, much less enough to pay for the costs by ripping off artists' royalties. And the record labels end up risking a lot of their money that gets lost on unsuccessful albums in return for the big payoffs on a huge-selling album and the medium payoffs on the medium-selling album where they get to rip off the bands' royalties.
The software industry has a lot of similarities - in some sense we're the Hollywood or rock star business of the 90s/00s, with a certain amount more solid real-world business but a lot of flash and entertainment and popular new waves followed by newer waves or retro version of older waves. And some folks get to be Mozillionares while other folks are just banging away in their garages, hopefully having fun in the process.
VCs put up a lot of risk money in return for large chunks of the startups they support, though the balance of power is different and even an unsuccessful startup usually pays its people a decent day-job wage before it tanks, unlike an unsuccessful record album.
I've recently been reading some biographies and histories of the late-60s San Francisco-area psychedelic bands - Jefferson Airplane/**, Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin. One mistake that happened with several bands is that after early successful records, their labels told them they could have unlimited studio time to work on their next project, and the bands took them up on it. This may be ok for speed metal bands or edgy punk types who want to get done quickly so they can go back to loud crowded clubs consuming aggressive drugs, but it's a bad idea for acidheads ("We were trying to get a perfect recording of the sound of thick air, so the percussionists could alternate it with the sound of thin air that we got last week, which would be a really cool effect, sort of a John [unc.edu] Cage [buffalo.edu] thing .") Analogies to followon software projects by highly creative people are left as an exercise for the reader :-)
Re:Why do we need a law? (Score:2)
In any case employees and employers are not in equal bargaining positions. If they were the employees would have an equal input on their employment contracts. They don't. The companies have the money, you either do what they say or you don't work.
The question is how did companies get that sort of power over you? The answer is that many years ago they took a weak employee to court and got a legal precedent set in their favor. Today, everybody accepts the status quo as being fair and correct; it is neither.
And why should copyright revert? (Score:2)
I think we shouldn't carve out special interest niches in copyright law for writers, artists, or other folks, we should fix copyright law as a whole and bring copyright terms back to something reasonable.
Re:Record Label as venture capitalist or loan shar (Score:2)
Just because an album didn't sell doesn't mean the band is free. Termination of a contract generally terminates the band. If a solo artist, he's pretty much out of the industry, unless some other label thinks they can do better and buys him out of his contract and debts (again, taking the money out of future royalties). With a band, either the same happens, or the band breaks up, and each member negotiates separately with the label's lawyers on how much they individually "cost" to buy out their subset of the contract.
Most just leave the industry alltogether, and hope they don't have too much of a permanent debt on their hands (after liquidating as much of their equipment as they think they can bare to live without) and get on with their lives, musical or otherwise. Yes, labels lose some on non-selling artists, but they do everything they can to minimize those losses and keeping the burden on 1) the artist, 2) the distributor, or 3) the retailers.
In a failed release, the label can say we "own" the album as colateral until the debt of the advance is paid off. But it ain't the labels' by default.
Re:And why should copyright revert? (Score:2)
software engineers get a decent salary and benefits while working on a product. in exchange for that they explicitly sign away rights to intellectual property developed at work. the engineer gets paied whether or not the product sells. and if the comany goes under the engineer is out of a job but incurrs no personal debt from the deal.
a major label musician, on the other hand, gets no salary, wage or benefits. if the conract explicitly gave the record label ownership of all IP then there wouldn't be an issue, but obviously that is not the case. most artists signed contracts before the new legistation and therfore expected the current copyright law at the time to apply to their contract.
the artist is loaned money by the record company, for the production, manufacturing, distribution and marketing of the CD and if it dosn't sell enough copies, the artist is in *serious* debt.
I don't see why record companies get to keep copyright even one moment after the contract has expired. the only reason why the record company get should get control of the copyright in the first place is to prevent the artist from using 2 different record companies at the same time.
this isn't giving the artist a special interest niche, this is taking away a special interest niche that was handed to the record comanies recently.
Re:Why do we need a law? (Score:2)
That only depends on how you work. If you are salaried (are any published artists salaried?) then no you don't own the copyright. But if you are on a contract to publish a record, then everything depends on wording of the contract. It might say that the company gets copyrights. Or exclusive rights for 35 years, after which time the artist has the rights. Or it might say that copyright belongs to the artist. If it doesn't say anything, whoever pays for the work gets the copyright.
I once worked for a small company that had a contract to develop a piece of software. The contract gave copyrights to the work to the contractor, but the company got paid for completion of the contract and commission on all sales. The contract needed to state who owns the copyright explicitly. Both sides wanted that, to avoid any unpleasant future problems. If the contract said that the company retains the copyright (as does happen with many programs that are contracted out, whoever pays for them just gets a license), then the company would be free to do with the code as they pleased.
That's a horribly flawed argument. We're talking about the employees' contracts, and they choose to not take the job! All the power is with the employees, when it comes to signing their contract. And how much the president of the record label gets paid is none of the artists' business.
The companies have no power over me or over the artists. If artists sign bad contracts, it's their own fault. I would never sign a contract that said that I loose copyright to my artistic work. I might give a record label an exlusive right to publish it for a period of time, but it's my music. And I guarantee you that if I were a good enough artist, the company would go along with this (as they clearly are now anyway, I just don't understand why this is necessary in the first place).
Writing software is no different here. When Id releases new version of Quake they get somebody to publish the program for them. That doesn't mean that Id looses copyright to the program. And yes, they get paid on comission by the publishing company (money is paid to publishing company, a chunk of which is then passed along to Id).
Point is that originally the material is copyrighted and owned by the artists, until they sign the rights over to a record label. If they sign a bad contract, then they can cry all they want, it's their fault. They should have gotten a better lawyer.
m
Re:And whose fault is it? (Score:2)
Here is the way to stop this nonsense. Severely limit what the government is allowed to do. If the congressman you just bought is incapable of diverting taxpayers money into your pocket then you will be less likely to buy another one. All you have to do is to get the government out of the corporate welfare business.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:We Don't Want a Line Item Veto (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
AFKATAFKAP (Score:2)
But that was early days. What did we know then.
Thad
Re:As if that will change anything... (Score:2)
Not over (Score:2)
Re:uuuhhh.. (Score:2)
Good lord, just thinking about a 53 year-old Christina Aguilera in a crop top singing "Genie in a Bottle" like a latter-day Cher with a bleach-job... in the name of all that is beautiful and good we must prevent this from ever happening.
I'm sure everyone had the same complaints about Abba when they came out.
Take-a-chance-take-a-chance-take-a-chance on Muddy Waters. Perhaps few hours of listening to good music might cure you of the delusion that Abba doesn't suck.
Cheesy music seems to really offend everyone over 14 when it was written less than five years ago. But now all my friends have suddenly changed their position on the New Kids on the Block and are thinking they're pretty cool.
If they were really your friends you would care enough to point out to them that the New Kids on the block were never cool, and never will be.
(That was fun... my own little "Hollywood Minute" moment.)
Re:And whose fault is it? (Score:2)
If this is a major factor with your congressmen, it sounds like you voted the wrong guy into office. Your congressmen are put there to represent your (the constituent's) interests. Sure, that includes corporations, but it should never be exclusive. You should not need any bargaining chips. If he/she is not consistently representing your interests, he does not need to be in that office.
This is exactly why we should be writing them. Clue them in, educate them about why such-and-such is bad or why this-or-that is better. Why do the lobbyists have to be subject matter experts?
How is recriutment going? (Score:2)
Now that the issue of record companies stealing the rights of musicians in perpetuity have received such a public airing, perhaps new talent has been avoiding signing with RIAA companies - insisting on contract modifications or going with self-publishing (especially via online techniques).
Calling for a reversal is a freebie for RIAA anyhow. The law is in place, so the call for reversing it (especially if they DON'T fund their lobbiests to pushe it the way they did the original change) is just noise.
Re:Inaccuracy in original story (Score:2)
The artists' lawyers told them that that didn't matter, because it was unenforcable -- copyright law specifically lists the types of works that CAN BE works made for hire, and sound recordings weren't one of them.
By slipping in this little change to the copyright law, the RIAA would, in effect, be snatching every piece of music by every one of it's artists with a contract.
Re:Cost of a CD (Score:2)
Idiot: (Score:2)
A 3 minute search on google gives this library of congress URL on the history of copyright.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/circ1a.html
(Or see my posts from a couple weeks ago.)