'That's All Right' Soon To Enter UK Public Domain 519
jwlidtnet writes "Reuters is reporting that Elvis's "That's All Right"--currently an unlikely hit in Great Britain--is soon to enter the public domain in that country, followed by other milestones of popular music as Britain's fifty-year protection period comes to an end. Naturally, rights owners are outraged, regarding it as a "wakeup call" for Britain to adopt something similar to the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, to end this "discrepancy between the United States and the EU." Copyright law uniformity has of course been a sore issue in recent years, with the exportation of "DMCA-alike" legislation raising the ire of many. Uniformity on an issue this divisive might be difficult to achieve politically."
Toddlers banging a drum? (Score:3, Interesting)
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
This song becoming a hit is more likely than one might imagine.
As for "rights owners" we need to say who this phrase really means: The American monopoly music companies.
They have already said that they will try and block the importation of products containing legally produced public domain works [mit.edu]; it would be the most delicious of situations if this song did become a huge smash after it entered the public domain in the UK, and the RIAA tried to block its importation.
One thing is for certain; as more and more works enter the public domain here in the UK, the likelyhood of a hit coming from one of these works increases. This confrontation is going to happen.
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:5, Interesting)
>then at the end of those 50 years, the owner
>wanted the property back
Firstly, copyright is not strictly a lease, its more a legally enforced priviledge which can be licensed by the rights holder. IPR is a bit of an accident which has snowballed from the Berne Convention back in 68. Secondly, there is a preceptual problem between Anglo-Saxon and European view of copyright, with the first considering it more from the economic aspecit (promoting the advancement of science/arts) whereas the EU approach it from the moral rights of authors. Thirdly, if you look at modern legislation, say the EU sui genesis Database rights, then you can see they encourage people to sustain their efforts. 15 years renewable everytime you validate/updade the database.
The practical reality (if you look at software) is that there is a definite shelf life for works
LL
Loophole? (Score:3, Interesting)
With record companies, I wonder if they can release low quality versions into public domain, while maintaining rights to higher quality versions. So they can release 96kbit mp3 into public domain, but a CD quality version maintains or recieves copywrite.
But I think this scenario will definately have interesting results. If the track does become a hit and is public domain, how will companies distinguish their final products from one another? Will it come down to the case, additional tracks, a DVD movie?... Other ways of looping copywrite into the equation? I will be waiting for the outcome.
Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
"It's scary," Welch said during a 37-date sold-out tour of the United Kingdom. "I only became aware of the situation last year
Yeah, sounds like he'd really be struggling if he lost the income from that 50-year-old song.
Let them have their copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
It will fail.
Elvis found his inspiration and many of his melodies in a common musical culture created by (ironically) generations of the poorest black American musicians. Creativity comes from many sources, but corporate profits are not one of them. This was true in the early part of the 20th century, where the sheet-music publishers tried to dominate the music industry (and failed). It is as true today.
For every "major" work copyrighted and kept out of the cultural blender, a hundred unknown artists pour their talent into creating something new.
Let them have their copyrights. It means young artists will have to search harder for their inspirations, but the results will be better for it.
Re:Incentive (Score:1, Interesting)
Michael Jackson's second wife gave birth to his first son and daughter: Prince Michael Jackson, Jr. and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson.
Michael Jackson has not revealed the identity of mother of his second son, Prince Michael Jackson II.
Does this mean (Score:2, Interesting)
Thoughts about Apple, Napster, Sony... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple currently gets a 13 cent cut off of each song and by the recent financial statement appears to make about 2.4 cents a song profit.
Will Apple be able to collect the 55 cents that goes to the RIAA and the 32 cents the artists get?
Answer is very simply: greed (Score:3, Interesting)
In 50-60ties there was sheet music industry (publishers). They were a middle man, actually they did NOTHING in creation of work of art, but they wanted EVERYTHING. Profits, everything. Musicians usually didn't wanted to take care of redistribution, publishing, so they given those rights to publishers.
As anywhere, when bigger and bigger money appears in industry, middle man is always trying to gain more and more money, actually even don't caring that could turn lot of tallented people away from mainstream publishers and to try independent ones.
So, question is, when there is REASONABLE to extend copyright? I would say - a little bit, BUT not 100 years, not 'forever'. However the greed of middle man aka big fat publishing companies are actually unstoppable, as they all are
So, whatever. BUT one thing they don't know - that their actions actually shrinks their market. They looking for today's profits, don't care about tomorrow.
Re:Copyrights and money (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't have to be high but should be renewed anually and allow a grace period of say 5 years of non payment and the copyright / patent would expire and it would enter the public domain.
copyright should be transferable but grant a royalty back to the original copyright holder (or their creditors).
there are several benefits to this model.
1)maintain traceable ownership no more orphan works.
2)all valuble copyrights can be maintained as long as the annual fee gets paid
once this becomes uneconomic then it becomes part of humanity's heritage.
3) with the grace period copyright can be reinstated if the person/ company that let the copyright slip suddenly finds his idea being commercially exploited.
4)by giving a royalty back to the originator even if big buck corperation see's potential in your idea and gives you a relatively small fee for rights if they then go on to make millions of your idea you still benefit and if you go bust owing millions your creditors still get back some of the money they invested in you.
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with this line of reasoning is that "unsucessful" authors are in the majority and even sucessful authors need not be motivated by the idea of making money from their work. e.g. JK Rowling did not create Harry Potter because she hoped to become the best selling author in history.
Even if you can demonstrate that copyright provides a prositive incentive for creation there is the issue of how much (and what form of) copyright is optimal.
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think retroactive extension is inhenrently at odds with encouraging innovation. Practically, it's most likely motivated by things other than the public good (i.e. lobbiests, &c.), but it can certainly be justified.
At it's heart, copyright is about property rights. Strong protection of property rights encourages investment, which is a good thing for the economy.
However, property isn't as clear-cut as we'd like to think. Consider owning a piece of land: you don't usually have mineral rights, and the government can force you to sell if they want to build a highway. If you own some piece of a river upstream, you can't build a dam and charge the downstream people for water. You can't build a well and drain the entire underground water supply. And then all material goods are, at some level, made from these minerals. But I digress...
Patents are a strange form of property, because many patents cover ideas that may be arrived at without the patent holder ever existing. So that's why they're much more limited in timeframe.
Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind. So, it might actually be reasonable to give infinite ownership to the creator. Probably not a good practical idea, but reasonable people could at least make a good moral argument.
Now, the word "infinite" runs us right into another practical problem. People die eventually, and the moral argument really only lasts a few generations (for most people).
And all this makes the "X years plus life of author" make sense, I suppose. It's a balance. I think it would probably be best, from an economic standpoint, to have X = 25 years. But I have no real justification for that at all. Each person I expect has their own moral thresholds. My moral threshold would be much higher actually (X=100 years maybe), but from an economic standpoint, I really hate to see a valuable work go to waste.
P.S. The whole idea that ideas have zero marginal cost to reproduce introduces complexities that have been hashed out many times before, so I'll stay away from that one.
Re:Incentive (Score:3, Interesting)
seems sketchy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Uniformity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, that makes sense!
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? I haven't seen "a good moral argument" for that case.
But I can make an easy argument NOT to make them infinite. The person who created the work will not live forever.
"And all this makes the "X years plus life of author" make sense, I suppose. It's a balance."
Yet 50 years is ALSO "a balance".
What is the criteria for choosing one over the other?
"My moral threshold would be much higher actually (X=100 years maybe), but from an economic standpoint, I really hate to see a valuable work go to waste."
Why is your "moral threshold" that high? Why do you not consider economics in your "moral threshold"?
The government (funded by the people) has to protect those copyrights. Where is the benefit to the people of that action if the works only enter the PUBLIC domain long after they've ceased to be of any value to the PUBLIC?
Your position would be stronger if the INDIVIDUALS held the copyrights to their creations.
But now it is mostly the corporations that hold those copyrights.
The extensions are designed so that every bit of value can be extracted long before the works end up in the public domain.
Which is why Disney fights for extensions every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of hitting the public domain.
Circular "consistency" argument (Score:5, Interesting)
-- The EU makes compositions death of the author + 70 years, and records date of recording + 50 years
-- The US becomes "consistent" by making all copyrights death of the author + 70 years
-- The EU restores "consistency" by
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that what I said?
And yes, 50 years is a balance too. I never suggested otherwise, that's why I left it "X".
If someone creates a work and doesn't want to share it with me, that's their business. What if Disney made Mickey Mouse and then threw it away? Oh well, I can't stop them.
I think probably the most important thing is stability. Investors will get scared if the government doesn't protect old copyrights as much as they do new copyrights because it's an indicator that they might not protect new copyrights as much as old copyrights. I don't think they should have increased it to 70 years in the first place, because it creates more problems than it solves.
Stability is very important when it involves something as fundamental as property rights. We can't change copyright law around every few years because of a change of public opinion, because changing copyright protection is, in and of itself, bad for the economy.
How about the Beatles? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong here, I am for keeping the laws the way they are. I just see a lot more controversy looming in the future.
Great example ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess I am one of those horrible and EVIL people that are using the music of these poor helpless and dead songwriters who's property is being mercilessly ripped from them by the tax collectors so I can subvert their music, image and make them horribly poor and make their families suffer.
I am an Evil evil person.
Maybe I should go to corperate jail.. anyone know whereI should turn myself in?
You do not understand copyright. (Score:5, Interesting)
And their work will NEVER enter public domain. Copyright only protects work that is distributed.
"And yes, 50 years is a balance too. I never suggested otherwise, that's why I left it "X"."
But you also said...
"And all this makes the "X years plus life of author" make sense, I suppose. It's a balance."
How about 1 year then? That too is "a balance".
"I think probably the most important thing is stability. Investors will get scared if the government doesn't protect old copyrights as much as they do new copyrights because it's an indicator that they might not protect new copyrights as much as old copyrights."
What "investors" are you talking about?
"Stability is very important when it involves something as fundamental as property rights. We can't change copyright law around every few years because of a change of public opinion, because changing copyright protection is, in and of itself, bad for the economy."
How so is changinge copyright protection "bad for the economy"?
Sono Bono:Fledgling TV industry (Score:2, Interesting)
This is my aesthetic response to an annoying pop star who did little other than be famous for not being attractive in the company of someone who portrayed airhead/skank/easy. Comedic contrast. It was funny that they couldn't sing but tried anyway - it was satire to some members of the audience. If you and I cannot agree on what the performance was - how are we likely to quantify it's value?
Artforms meld with one another very readily, making it difficult to understand exactly how the proportions of each incorprated element affect the audience. Ask yourself what a video has to do with a song and you'll see a facet of what I mean. Is that Marketing the product or is it actually the Product - because second ago the song was the product. You can see how an accountant would be pulling hairs trying to departmentalize the beans, what about a legislator trying to ANTICIPATE tomorrow's perceptions of What Art Is?
Sono Bono:Fledgling TV industry ;) And no one can really stand that "I got you babe" song unless they just fell in love last week.
Tell me the recording industry has a good track record in ANY facet of it's business and I'll call you a liar. In Sony's 15 minutes the industry was still slavering over the profit of The Silver Beatles. Perhaps Sony's insight is corrupt because he was a young star. He brought a "valid" insight indeed - but a balanced insight??? Stars are/were INTENSELY Catered-To heavily at some point in their development. Perhaps his drive was flawed by his experience - he ended up a politician remember
The point is that copywriting aesthetic 'products' AND enforcing the law is a difficult thing to do. When's the last time a band paid royalties for playing a cover song live? It is illegal you know. Perhaps there is no product except the media that art is pressed into and the other products that spin the media and amplify and project the contents.
Elgar, Holst and Delius (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be a great tribute to Elgar, Delius and Holst if, as their music comes out of copyright at the end of this year, their work was to truly enter teh public domain - the Mutopia project springs to mind.
Sadly, it will be another 15 years before Vaughan WIlliams enters the public domain, as I want to use some of his sacred music, but the royalties quoted by the copyright holder are too much.
Dunstan
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it....So, it might actually be reasonable to give infinite ownership to the creator."
Even if you insist on treating copyrights as the moral equivalent of property (which is not the Anglo-saxon model, of course), perpetual copyright is still inconsistent with our notions of conventional property. Limits on the scope of property claims have had limits for centuries.
Ownership of real property (real property==land) gives the right to refuse admittance. But you cannot buy up every piece of property surrounding someone who won't sell, and then hold the isolated property hostage; you have to provide reasonable accomodation for travel. Right of property is limited by right of way (the right to travel over another's property), or we would all be prisoners on our own land. That common law priciple has since refined into things like easments (the right to string power lines over your land, etc.). Others have mentioned mineral rights, which separate from ordinary property rights when a mineral deposit stretches under many separate properties and it is impractical to negotiate with many individual owners.
Even personal (non-land) property is subject to limits. A taxicab, for example, can be commandeered in times of public emergency. Personal effects can be siezed for evidence in a criminal investigation.
In this light, a time limit on copyrights (which represent something like 1% of the value to the creator, when adjusted for present value) are a perfectly reasonable limit on copyright-as-property, a sort of easment, if you will. Whereas perpetual copyright would be unique among property rights in its absoluteness.
Re:I hope the governments don't give in (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:3, Interesting)
Historical works of art are un-available to the public
Relatively long term copyright (life to +25):
Horrid resale of nostalga CD's, please give us fresh music
Long Term Copyright (50 to life)
People get there moneys worth, can support there retirement on previous works.
Short Term Copyright (25 years)
Horridly large numbers of cheep cover-versions and compliation CD's which erote the public sanity.
Very Short Term Copyright (5 years)
People can't make any money on works which they can't afford to publish within 5 years of being created.
I think Life is good, keeps you safe in retirement, and youre publisher will pay your medical bills until your 250 years old
Sunny-day capitalists (Score:4, Interesting)
A clarification of this law. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are numerous record companies in Europe issuing compilations under these rules. For example last week I went looking for a Charlie Parker compilation, and I must have seen around 10 different such albums, all containing similar tracks, in one store alone. The packaging and annotation of these issues varied accordingly, from very shoddy (misspelt titles and no cover photograph) to a 40 page illustrated booklet with full session listings.
There are a few labels with a reputation for making quality album, some even better that the label with the full rights to such recordings - labels such as JSP for Blues, Proper for Jazz, Blues and Country, and Naxos Historical for Classical. The original label, though, have the advantage as the alternate takes usually expire many years later, as their original year of issue was usually many years after the initial recording.
I believe the law in Spain is slightly different, as there's a Spanish label called Definitive who have recently issued some recordings from 1954. These have appeared in some UK stores, even though their contents don't expire until the end of the year.
The copyright rules regarding music publishing expire 50 years after the composer deaths, so the composers' estates will still be getting paid.
This already happened with classical music (Score:1, Interesting)
Tons and tons of 10-20 or even 40 collection CD's with various digitally remastered recordings from famous archestra's from that period. Possible because the original recording entered the public domain.
Final question to ponder. Those new master recordings, based on the original recording (now in the public domain) would they be copyrighted or not?