UK Rejects Extending Music Copyright 338
timrichardson writes "The British Government has rejected extending copyright for sound recordings. This is an important development in the face of trends to extend copyright duration, although it leaves British copyright protection for music recordings at a shorter duration than for written works. The decision came despite fierce lobbying from the large British music industry. The music industry will now lobby directly to the European Commission, but without the support of the national government, its position is significantly weakened. British copyright for music recordings therefore remains at 50 years after the date of release of a recording, in contrast to 95 years in the US and 70 years in Australia."
*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Informative)
Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before [allmusic.com] that.
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to get started here are some links:
http://www.guitartricks.com/ [guitartricks.com]
http://www.learnpianoonline.com/welcome.html [learnpianoonline.com]
http://www.studydrums.com/ [studydrums.com]
The entertainment industry is open to anyone, male or female, black or white, and has no real barriers to entry. there are very cheap starter guitars and
Re:*heh* (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF? how does the other 99.9% you refer to avoid all these pit falls by having a "normal" (what ever the fuck that is) job? you still get rejections and sarcasm from people in any job, no one even has the certainty of making minimum wage for that matter. If you find a job where i can avoid/have all the above, please tell me, because i'd love to take it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you're looking for a job without sarcasm then please do not work with me
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I have my own business and all those things apply to me too. But there are no special laws for me that say I should continue to profit from work I did decades ago.
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that it is very hard to be an entertainer and you still have to make sacrifices to get to the top but rarely the same as small business make. If an entertainer fails and is not stupid they can still do other work for a living but if a business venture goes stale then the owner and/or shareholders can go bankrupt requiring a considerable amount of time to recover if ever.
Personally I think 50 years is far to long since it rare that an entertainer actually writes (this can be copyright) and produces his/her own routines, in most cases they do what they are told which is not much different from that of an employee of any business, except they can get huge amounts of money and can collect up to 50 years of royalties if they were smart enough to negotiate for this.
Re:*heh* (Score:4, Insightful)
A concert employs dozens, if not hundreds, from ticket takers to sound and lighting engineers. How many people work in a recording studio, or the factory that presses discs? Heck, even a one-man-band at a coffee shop or bar might have some kid working the door, or at the very least keeps the establishment's own employees busy, sometimes requiring extra staff depending on how big of a crowd is drawn.
An entertainer has the crowd's attention focused on them by the very nature of what they do. Just because you don't notice the army of black-clad figures behind the scenes putting it all together and making it work, doesn't mean they're absent or unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are indeed laws for patents, copyrights and trademarks that make it possible for business people to continue to profit from original work their employees performed decades ago. And leasing agreements. And stock ownership plans.
No need to feel left out, you have the same laws at your disposal.
Yes there is. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
After a period of time, employers are usually looking for recent experience and demonstrated capability. Sure, they do expect to see a degree for most professional positions, but the degree alone (if at all) is not a passport for big-buck jobs.
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Interesting)
Also a better way to make money is to be a record company executive, instead of trying to be a musician. Trying to get rich AND famous is a dream for losers. There are much more reliable ways to make tons of money than being a star (movie, sports or pop).
A some musicians get bitten by the Jazz bug during their rise in skill, and never become rich and famous. Not much money in Jazz, but musicians seem very dedicated to it. whatever makes you happy really.
But I think the question is, just because it takes some talent to be a top novelist, rich pop star, etc. why do they get a century long monopoly on their creations? Why not extend the same benefits to professional athletes, investment bankers and brain surgeons. They all had to work hard to be where they are, and none of them can earn royalties into future generations.
This is especially interesting to consider when you realize that a professional athlete can't continue to play into old age. Their body wears out and they eventually retire. While musicians like Mick Jagger can play for many many years (he's a grandfather), but still able to play and make money. I would argue he could continue to have a vast fortune without life-time copyright protections.
Why do we need a huge infrastructure of litigation and copyright enforcement? what benefits does it give society? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some sort of socialist, far from it. I am strongly support that individuals should have many rights and privileges and individuals should be protected from broad community interference. But also I don't think immortal corporations and organizations should have as many rights as human individuals do. sometimes it seems like they have more, but maybe it's power that money can buy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the key here is not so much about copyright limits and royalties but how you define ownership. If you want to define ownership of an idea in the same way that you do an object then there should be no limits, ownership could be sold to whoever wants it, and if desired can be donated to public use much like an artifact or a historical building. These "objects" would simply have the happy side effect of being leased out to an infinite amount of people at the same time. like an apartment complex with an infinite amount of rooms.
If you want to view an idea as belonging only to the person who created the idea, as if the idea itself is PART OF THAT PERSON, then maybe copyrights should be non-transferable... maybe they should become public domain with the death of their originator and if a record label wants exclusive use they should be required to exclusively lease that idea while the originator is alive. So when some musician signs with a label, or some writer signs with a publisher they always retain the rights to their works but they might sign a life time exclusive lease with the record label. the label could then sub-let it to other labels or terminate their contract etc. I doubt we'd ever see a system like this get put to use.
Maybe a happy medium that would actually bode with todays model is to set a limit of 50 years or until death, whichever is longer.
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
With copyright, I am involved in the system whether I like it or not. My right to use and change data is restricted by government intervention in order to protect the profits of a small minority who rely on an otherwise broken business model.
It's all a pointless discussion anyway. Extrapolating from current trends, in 15 years time you'll be able to buy a disc for next to nothing containing all the music anyone would want for next to nothing. Kids will be trading them in the playground for a pack of crisps. It's just a shame it will probably take until then for the industry to adapt itself, because it will cause itself so much pain in the mean time. If only it would aggressively adapt now, things would be better for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps you should have said "all the music". Does anyone know of an estimate of how much space it would take up to store literally every piece of music ever professionally recorded? A few dozen terabytes? It's not even surprising that such amounts of data will fit on thumb drives in a couple of years...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. no fatties and no ugly chicks.
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*heh* (Score:5, Insightful)
As a UK citizen, I'm glad the British government is able to stand up to the record companies and reject their calls for an extension. If anything, we should be looking at reducing the length of copyright for written works (books and stuff) to match that for music.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Andrew Gowers (chairman of the copyright review) said that there is a solid economic case for reducing copyright - but that only political reality prevented his panel from recommending such an action. Traditionally, big copyright has represented reduction in copyright term as expropriating their income without due compensation. Perverse, I know, but there you go. We cou
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Easy. Build a house. Rent it out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That assumes that you can rent it in 50 years without doing any work for it. A 50 year old house without maintenance in its lifetime is only worth the terrain it's build on. Which brings us to the next point: unless you have a terrain, you have to buy one, which means you need to have money in order to do this. Don't say "mortage", because you'll be working to pay the mortgage off. It also assumes that you can build a house on your own from architecture to building the roof. I doubt you can do that, so
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Problem solved then. All Cliff and Sir Paul have to do is buy property with their earnings and rent it out.
No need for any special legislation at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cliff Richards is still alive? I've always assumed he was either a hologram or part of a "weekend at Bernie's" type situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.decanter.com/news/86397.html [decanter.com]
no, wait
Re: (Score:2)
The RECORDINGS' copyright -- the particular recordings made 50 years ago. Not the copyright of the music and lyrics, which lasts for their lifetime + 70 years. (Though I think thay signed thewm away to the record companies, who later sold them to Micheal Jackson, IIRC.) But in the last 10 years, the "Anthology" and such versions of the old songs will have copyrights until McCartney is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*heh* (Score:4, Insightful)
So? The point of copyright is NOT to pay artists. That's a side-effect. The point is to encourage creativity in society. In previous and current incarnations of copyright law, this is done by paying artists royalties for a given period of time. If I understand correctly, this period of time has constantly increased.
I would argue that the period of time should be DECREASING. As more and more artists exposed to more and more global ideas are able to evolve new works more quickly, the legitimacy of holding on to now-outdated work quickly falls away.
Long copyright terms made more sense when the latest popular music was the same stuff some classical artist created 15 years ago -- when it just spread far enough for everyone to learn about and for others to begin dreaming up variations on. Today, music is distributed worldwide in seconds or less, and is absorbed into a huge global consciousness of styles, tastes, remixes, etc.
Music should not be copyrighted for more than a few years, imho.
Re:*heh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not make it 25 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes later? So if said artist is still alive after that length of time they still have rights to their work until they die, but if they die the record companies can't keep earning money in perpetuity for work someone else did, forcing them to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's that simple. Suppose a young musician is moderately popular, and is out on tour. Suppose (s)he dies in an accident, and their death sparks a tidal wave of interest in the musician. Now what if they had a very young child and widow? Are you suggesting the child and widow should be on welfare or be a working single-parent, when their spouse had more than enough money to support them if only they weren't screwed over
Re:Agreed. (Score:4, Insightful)
I make a good amount of money at my job. If I die is my employer required to pay my wife and kid for 50 years? Or do they pay life insurance premiums?
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Insightful)
In your example, the 25 years would be the "later" event, and so the copyright would continue through death. (Unless the artist has made the work 25 years ago, then died, *then* it became popular)
It was, originally. However, corporations making money off old creations lobbied to have it extended. For example, Disney is still pimping out a 1920s creation - Mickey Mouse.
Whoops. My bad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In your example 25 years would be the later term so his family would have been catered for a quarter of a century after his death. More so than if he was alive (and has no other success) because of the tidal wave of interest following his death.
The grandparent means that copyright would last for 25 years unless the artist has outlived that period, in which case, the copyright expires when he/she/they die.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, the main reason being given by the IFPI is that Paul McCartney and Cliff Richard are still not dead.
This is true, but neither particularly fit the image of "starving musician" that the IFPI wishes to project.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's worked for real property conveyance for more than five hundred years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This story is about the copyright of recordings. The copyright on music and lyrics, what you're talking about, last for 70 years after the composer's death. However, I am not sure that you can refuse to allow someone to cover your song in any case, there are compulsory licensing rights in some situations and you get a statutory paym
Re:Not all dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes, I couldn't agree with you more, ask any dead artist - the motivation to produce new works comes from the copyright powers they enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't do the excess thing properly why should we take them seriously as rockstars.
But seriously folks, anyone making money on a song 50 years old is minted and doesn't need the dough, and people messing around in a tasteless fashion with your creation is the fate of all public culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone like Sid Vicious on the other hand is more of a pop-culture legend than a musical one.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why should copyright expire in 50 years for a recording of an old artist, and in 110 years for a recording by a very young artist, but in 50 years if that very young artist dies in a car crash?
Re:Not all dead (Score:4, Insightful)
If they had a hit song, they're likely rich. Richer than riding a desk for 50 years, probably.
In the mean time, they could have invested the money and have gone from Rich to Very Rich Indeed. Or, you know, they could have made another recording. A second album. They could have gone on tour, making a lot of money with tickets. They could have decided to sell goodies, like tshirts and stuff (RHCP used to not sell tshirts, when they did they bought a nice house in Hollywood for it. All of them. (source: documentary on TV)).
Your examples, however great artists they are or were, are not people we need to feel very sorry for in a monetary sense. Monetarily sorry. They have ample cash to live out there lives like a king without having to lift another finger.
Besides, they won't be recording any new songs when they die, so who benefits?
Yes, who will benefit? Their offspring? Perhaps. Stella McCartney is doing well for herself though. So is Lennon's kid. I don't think any of the Stones' offspring need to worry about their direct future. Madonna? Britney? Set for a couple of lifetimes.
The record labels will benefit, that's who. Too bad that the record labels aren't creative in any way. They don't deserve the monopoly granted by the government. They will never be able to record the next Satisfaction or Love Me Do. They have bands for that. Sure, a label has its role and should be compensated, but not through a government granted monopoly that wasn't even intended to be used in this sense. And to see these old bats act as their spokesperson is sickening.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a sad day indeed if their only business model was to persistently extend to copyright on the older body of work.
Perhaps this victory for common sense will enforce it.
From TFA: "Some of the greatest works of British music will soon be taken away from the artists who performed them and the companies that invested in them."
I see it differently, some of the greatest works of British music will be freed from the corporate shackles and given to the British people to enjoy freely.
From wiki: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. For example, the copyright which subsists in relation to a Mickey Mouse cartoon prohibits unauthorized parties from distributing copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works which copy or mimic Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of artistic works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are sufficiently different to not be deemed imitative of the original."
I'm all for extending copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm all for extending copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
50 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:50 years? (Score:5, Funny)
Keith Richards has some pretty wild dreams....
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not think about what they could be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play devil's advocate... where exactly is the line between "deserves more income" and "doesn't deserve more income"? If you can't tell me exactly where that is (although I'm sure there will be a plethora of responses with nonsensical numbers) and why, then I'm afraid we need a better argument than that.
Apologies if OP was intended to be humorous!
I understand the point of the MI (Score:4, Insightful)
Come 2015, you'll see a LOT of good music becoming free, free to share and free to enjoy. I can well see some kind of "retro" movement, not out of the usual reasons, but this time out of the reason that the music was good and then it's free. Kinda like an "anti-MI" movement. Music as a political statement again, though with a very different twist than it had in the early 70s.
But hey, I'd think it's cool when gramps and grandson bang their heads to the same tunes.
It's not only money that's at stake. People might find that the music back then was actually really "better" than the crap spewed by today's hype
Re:I understand the point of the MI (Score:5, Insightful)
I can assure that there was crap around then too.
The Archies and Paper Lace are just two that immediately spring to mind, but there were a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent, govnt. got it right for once (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the late eighties when they reformed and started touring again there was a running joke amongst the road crew.
Q) Why have Pink Floyd started touring again?
A) Because Nick Mason has a wife and 102 Ferrari's to support.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
List of countries' copyright length (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_c
AFAIK the EU has ruled that length should be 70 years, so this should make UK almost unique in the Europe. But there are several other countries that use 50 years. Personally I think the copyright should hold only certain amount of years, since publishing. The current law assumes that people die relatively young (under 200 years old), while some scientist bulieve that this will change in the near future and people could live thousands of years.
Re:List of countries' copyright length (Score:5, Informative)
I think you might be mistaking the authorial copyright (life + 70 years) versus the mechanical copyright (50 years from publication). In the case of music, the composer(s) are assigned the copyright, so that anyone covering the song must give royalties to the composer. The mechanical copyright extends only to the actual recording of a particular song. So, in a few years, the Beatles tracks will enter the public domain, but anyone wishing to re-record a Lennon-McCartney Beatles number will still need to render money to Paul McCartney (and I guess Yoko Ono).
The complaints from the record labels was that the mechanical copyright needs to be extended to 95 years. I think they're content to leave the authorial copyright where it is.
I don't think the UK is out of wack with the rest of the EU. We harmonised copyright terms in 1995 (which was a sodding disaster, since films moved from 50 years from first showing, to life of director/screenwriter/music composer + 70. Thus making film copyright essentially forever).
--Ng
Changing the rules is one thing (Score:3, Insightful)
For someone to lobby parliament to assign them ownership of a public good for free, I think they should at least show that they are either: extremely poor, or: a worthy cause. I think it's disgusting when super rich people ask for handouts.
50 years is still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad, it was too long anyway. I read an article (here [arstechnica.com]) that said the optimum length is ~14 years!
IMO, it should be life of the author and that's it. Oh, and it should also be non-transferable---stop (most) record companies forcing the songwriters to give up the rights to their own songs in their contracts...
Software next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're just trying to be provocative, and you've chosen a deliberately very short length of time because this would have impact on the incomes of a lot of Slashdotters.
But I think if you're trying to provoke your point is not valid anyway - I expect very few of us would be affected if a copyright length term on software was reasonable, say 20 years, and most people who cre
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was actually just being facetious.
HOWEVER.. with a longer time line (as you suggest) it reads as a very good idea for reasons you already stated which I won't reiterate.
however 20 years would leave us before even windows 3.1 10 years would give us 95 to play with.. but admittedly since there are still features of windows 95 AND 3.1 [bink.nu] in vista... maybe some secrets are still too new
Re:Software next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Software next? (Score:4, Interesting)
One way of countering this would be to make copyright duration inversely proportional to the strictness of the original license. Make the base term five years, and then add two years for each of the extra rights granted (e.g. source availability, distribution, modification, distribution of modifications, distribution without source). Software released under BSD or MIT type licenses not falling into the public domain for a long time doesn't cause anyone many problems, since the code is sufficiently close to being public domain already that most people can treat it as if it is. Think of it as public domain on an instalment plan; if you disclaim some of the rights granted by copyright, you get to hang onto the others for longer.
Remixing (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like quite a good deal actually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misconceptions (Score:2, Insightful)
No campaign donations? No bribes? (Score:5, Funny)
Change of government (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the bribes werent big enough, not when you are an MP in a university town with all those students to upset
Importand Destinction (Score:2)
A lot of hyperbole from the IFPI, as usual. The important thing to remember is that this is Mechanical copyright. That is, the copyright on the actual recording of a song. In many cases, the people lobbying for these extensions (i.e., the "Artists") were also the composers so also own the copyright to the song/music itself. They will still own that as it only expires at death+70 years.
This means that people who wish to cover said works will still be a source of income.
The artists knew when they reco
Ukians? Thinking of voting Conservative? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear Mr Roberts,
I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail
following David's recent speech to the British Phonographic Industry
AGM.
There is little doubt that copyright theft is a major threat to the
future of our creative industries. Last year alone an estimated 20
billion music files were downloaded illegally. We must also not forget
the strong evidence showing that much of the profit from illegal
downloads and piracy goes to fund drugs and organised crime. Taking
proper measures to protect our musicians and artists from such theft
will allow more money to end up with musicians and artists, and will
allow the music industry to reinvest in developing and nurturing new
talent.
That is why David supports the extension of copyright term from the
current 50 years to 70 years. This would reduce the disparity between
the length of copyright term given to composers and that granted to
producers and performers, and will protect the thousands of musicians
who will lose the rights to their recordings over the next ten years.
Some people think these are all multi-millionaire rock stars, but the
reality is that many are low-earning session musicians who will be
losing a vital pension.
Finally, we believe that extending copyright term will not only allow
record companies to further reinvest in developing the next generation
of musical talent, it will also encourage the industry to digitise both
older and niche repertoire which will be good for all music fans.
Thank you, once again, for getting in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Honor Fishburn
Office of David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
My original message was:
David Cameron is not winning friends and influencing people by the
speech to the BPI. The recording industry is small, and overly vocal,
while there are a vast number of people who expect that copyright should
protect the immediate future of artists, but should not drag on to the
obscene level of 50 or 70 years after the death of the artist or
publication. Many people wonder what is so special about music when
designs and patents only extend for 20 years or so. Like patents,
copyright should be a deal; protection for a limited term in exchange
for placing ideas into the public pool.
Copyright and Patents are designed to encourage people to place their
ideas into the open so that other people may use them immediately at a
cost, and so that the ideas therein may become part of the Public body
of knowledge, available to all for the good of all.
Far from campaigning for an increase in the length of copyright, its
duration should be reduced to that similar to patents.
This argument has been dragging on for ages. He should really read a
speech by Thomas McCauley on Copyright from 1841, the opinions therein
are still just as valid today.
The byline on this form states
"Conservatives are tackling the issues that matter to the mainstream
majority."; in making this speech Mr Cameron is pandering to an
overprivileged minority. Their ideas and products deserve protection for
a limited term, not fossilisation for ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Called them on the Bull (Score:2, Interesting)
Thankyou for responding to my email. Whilst I thank you for the reply, I do not think that the Party has thought its policy through on this issue.
Mr Cameron seems to have swallowed the industry spiel hook line and sinker.
The majority of "illegal" downloads were between normal people as a result of filesharing, and if the copyright law came down to a reasonable level, then these would be de facto illegal downloads would no longer be illegal. You sh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vote Lib Dem... hell, I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'd rather see New Labour in under Brown than Cameron in. Blair, OK, I would've preferred Cameron, but Brown is actually better.
14 years (Score:3, Insightful)
ah Cliff... (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus:
Cliff: Yes my Lord, I read it all the time. It's the best book in the world.
Jesus: Ah, but the thing is... Me and my dad wrote that... and you never paid us... I heard the other day that that's theft. Hell, if it was just me, I might let it slide, but it was in the commandments and all. Can't have one rule for you and another for those who stole a physical copy of books from shops... time to burn.
50 years....50 secs more like! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not saying 50 years isn't too long (it is, 25 years minimum is at least reasonable) but come on.
Fair enough (Score:4, Interesting)
For how many years after repairing a car can a garage mechanic expect to continue to get paid every time the owner drives it?
For how many years after hanging wallpaper can a decorator expect to continue to get paid every time the householder looks at it?
For how many years after putting up a set of shelves can a handyman expect to continue to get paid every time someone puts something on or takes something off the shelves?
For how many years after having sex with a punter can a prostitute expect to continue to get paid every time the punter cracks a stiffie?
In the Real World, you do a job, you get paid for it, and that's it until the next job you do.
That's all work for hire... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you pay the salary of an artist or an author for a work, up front, then you can "give away" the music or book they have written for you, and they only get paid once, just like all the other labors you describe.
Except for a few well known artists, who get an advance AND royalties, there are thousands who toil away without pay - until/unless they can sell their work "later". There is a difference between paying for
So what can I copy ? (Score:3, Interesting)
You get the idea.
Could I set up a business in the UK selling early Elvis Presley music without paying Elvis Presley Enterprises ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why can't the authour decide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Such a move is more likely to help large record companies than artists in the long run. If there was some guarantee that artists were likely to benefit, then I would be more amenable, However record companies have very good lawyers so I doubt there is a way to do this.