LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2011

ARSCLIST August 2011

Subject:

Re: Morning reading: One take on patents, somewhat related to discussions we've had on copyrights, plus a take on copyrights

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:49:13 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

I guess 56 years is OK for a written work, rights to the author. But, I'd say there should be a 
clause where if the song is licensed for an album and that album gets past the 25-30 years and goes 
into the PD, no one should have to pay a royalty to download the PD audio recording. But a new 
recording should have to license the song and pay royalties. My main interest is making older 
recordings widely available. I'm OK with extensions of copyright for the record companies as long as 
things remain in print. What I'm not OK with is vaults full of stuff that's out of print and 
unavailable to anyone. I don't mind paying for a recording, I do mind not having it available to 
purchase or otherwise hear, especially if it's very old and is obviously of no monetary value 
(obviousness demonstrated by being out of print for decades).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Morning reading: One take on patents, somewhat related to discussions we've 
had on copyrights, plus a take on copyrights


> 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 expected!!
>>
>> 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:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/arts/music/springsteen-and-others-soon-eligible-to-recover-song-rights.html
>>>
>>> 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 didn't
>>>> pay for creating. As I said, the rationalizations for weakening copyright
>>>> 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) lots
>>>> 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 choice
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>
>>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager