On 8/16/2011 2:59 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Hey now, I never "tell" anyone to do anything on this list. "Suggest"
> is my preferred term. ;)
We might be taking your suggestions with more authority than you have
> 35 years is enough time to make your bones off a song. It should go
> into the PD after that.
That being said, I agree that 35 years is enough for the company but I
like the performer able to get it back if they or heirs are around to
profit off it, so I think they should have more than 35 years as a
person. (I am thoroughly against the damn fool idea that a company is a
person. Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.) The original term in the 1909
law was 28 years plus a renewal of another 28 for a total of 56. There
was a recapture clause that allowed an author to regain a subsidiary
rights assignment at the point of the renewal, and I guess the 35 year
clause in the new law was a replacement. Remember, most other countries
have a 50 year term.
The other aspect discussed in the article was the "for hire" aspect of
the relationship between the performers and the record company. I have
a feeling that there will be a lot of judges and a lot of legislators
who might get rich in the next year or two from the RIAA's lobbying money.
> However, one thing that crossed my mind is, you shouldn't be able to
> lift phrases and words wholesale from a PD song and get a copyright
> for it. How does that get enforced? What's "wholesale lifting" in the
> legal sense? Gray area! -- Tom Fine
You can copyright an "arrangement" of a composition, sharing with the
original composer if it is in copyright but all yours if it is P.D.
Somebody was able to successfully sue a record company and orchestra a
couple of years ago for performing and recording their "edition" of a
Baroque era work without royalties! I don't think Bach or whoever shared!
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Morning reading: One take on patents, somewhat
> related to discussions we've had on copyrights, plus a take on copyrights
>> Tom Fine originally told us to read:
>> More directly related to what we discuss on this list:
>> This article talks about the RECORDING ARTISTS being able to recover
>> their copyrights from the record companies after 35 years. The
>> recording artists who potentially would care more about the
>> recordings than the record companies -- which usually have no
>> relationship to the company they had recorded for in the first place.
>> On 8/16/2011 1:48 PM, Bob Olhsson wrote:
>>> From: Thatcher Graham " Doesn't the ARSC typically argue that copyright
>>> is already too harsh..."
>>> I'm afraid lots of ARSC people want to exploit recordings that they
>>> pay for creating. As I said, the rationalizations for weakening
>>> are endless. "Preservation" is a pretty common one.
>> Tell me, Bob, exactly what did Sony pay for in creating the
>> recordings that were made by Victor or Columbia in, say 1915, that
>> they don't even have copies of in their own archive??? Tell me.
>> This was even before Mr. Sony himself was born. If it were a BOOK it
>> would be in Public Domain. If it were a MOVIE it would be in Public
>> Domain. If it was almost any other country in the world it would
>> have been in Public Domain since 1965, and if it was a sound
>> recording made in 1960 it would be in Public Domain now. Just
>> because in 1975 we had some of the stupidest and easiest legislators
>> to buy we have a totally asinine 186 year copyright term for sound
>> recordings that when today's legislators are told this they are
>> flabbergasted -- until they are bought by the RIAA.
>>> Unfortunately the consequence will be (some would argue already is)
>>> worse new recordings in the future. I think it's really magical
>>> thinking to
>>> suggest otherwise. Do we really want a world where the only quality
>>> will be historical recordings?
>>> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
>> This makes no sense. The recording industry has already realized
>> that the gravy train is gone and has cut back on expenses -- and
>> there has been change in the copyright term! If the companies
>> somehow think that they can no longer exploit a recording for a term
>> of NINETY-FIVE YEARS, but maybe only 35 or 50 or 75, would they spend
>> a dime less on the "quality" of their current productions because of
>> the copyright term length????? You know darn well that all they are
>> concerned with is sales in the first months of release. Record
>> producers know that if they keep snorting coke they won't be around
>> when the record hits "back catalog" so who cares?
>> Besides, the article was about the RECORDING ARTISTS getting control
>> of the recordings, something that many of the current performers
>> already want and therefor are bypassing the sham of getting a
>> recording contract with the the major rip-off labels. Are you saying
>> that only the major rip-off labels know how to make quality
>> recordings and that is why you feel quality has already gone down???
>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]