On 13/05/2012 20:37, Michael Biel wrote:
>>> The Gower commission understood all this and found that the 50 year
>>> recording copyright term was already TOO LONG! But Cliff Richard's
>>> bribery won out and they voted to lengthen it. I still think that the
>>> law ought to be Use-It-Or-Lose-It.
From: Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]>
>> Trouble with use-it-or-lose-it is where you set the bar. As I said when
>> lobbying against extension, without complicated definitions of what
>> constitutes use, the copyright holder could make the material available
>> for three weeks in mp3 on a website only accessible from Lithuania and
>> still retain protection. The British film production quotas of the
>> 1930s merely led to the uniformly awful "quota quickies".
This CAN be addressed and one of the proposals of the U.S. Copyright
Office (USCO) in their Report To Congress is very clear on this matter.
The recording must REMAIN IN PRINT, and digital streaming is not a
preferred method of so doing. This is discussed in the most recent
ARSC Newsletter, oages 5 and 6, available at
http://arsc-audio.org/newsletter/nslr128.pdf
> 1. Labels could continue to retain ownership of recordings made between 1923 and 1972 until 2067, but only if they registered their claim with the USCO, and kept the recordings in print at a reasonable price. If a recording went out of print, they would lose their rights to it. (The USCO discouraged the use of digital streaming as a way of meeting this requirement.)
> 2. Labels could retain ownership of pre-1923 recordings by taking the same steps, but for only 25 years after enactment of the law (i.e., if the law was passed in 2012, until 2037).
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
|