LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:48:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

On 8/16/2011 4:58 PM, Bob Olhsson wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> > From Michael Biel: "...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..."
>
> Exactly! People wag their fingers at the record labels but the people who'd
> get screwed all over again by a change would be the artists.

Huh??  The law only provides royalties to the companies and the 
composers.  The recording performers ONLY get what they contracted for 
with the record company.  The performers are ignored by the law because 
the companies own the copyrights.  Most of them are getting nothing -- 
especially if the companies have deleted their recordings.

As the article indicates, the record companies are going to be fighting 
this turnback tooth and nail just like they have been fighting any 
copyright term change.  No performers have been backing the status-quo 
except for a few toadies who are shilling for the record companies -- 
they seem to have special deals because they are not doing it for 
themselves.
>   The ability for
> artists to get their copyrights back has been there for over thirty years.

It hasn't gone into effect yet.  It kicks in 35 years after Jan 1, 1978, 
so we have kn way of knowing if it is going to work.
> That fact is conveniently ignored by the tech industry's endless "evil RIAA"
> arguments. So is the fact that a huge percentage of masters from the '50s
> and later are owned by the artists themselves.

WHO????????  You often tell us you worked for Motown.  What Motown 
performer owns their masters??????

Except for some like Ani DiFranco who in the last 10 or 15 years 
realized they could get around the rip-off majors by starting their own 
labels, the labels own the masters..  Going back to the 50s and 60s we 
have examples like Stan Kenton who had to pay a king's ransom to get 
ownership of his masters back fro  EMI because his income from his 
recordings went down to ZERO when Capitol deleted all of them.  Andy 
Williams likewise got his Cadence masters after Archie Bleyer closed the 
label down, but Sony still owns the rest of his life's work.   Which 
performers owned their masters from the start?  Name them.  Even Zappa 
didn't have control of his masters till he started Bizarre.

Performers are at the mercy of the ninnies who run the record companies 
-- but if they are lucky they might again see something from 
downloads.because back catalog has a greater chance of being available 
on line because there is no need for production of CDs and holding 
inventory.  If they are able to get their masters back from the 
companies  THEY can make sure they are available.
> Something else is that for the first time we have the technology to
> facilitate the granting of licenses and the collection of micro-payment
> royalties for tiny quantities of obscure works. Licensing and bringing such
> recordings to light is far more practical to do today than it has ever been
> before.  Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Are you saying that technology has made ASCAP, BMI, and Harry Fox more 
efficient?  Because the Digital Copyright Tribunal is very inefficient.

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

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