Thanks very much for those news items, Stephen.  I will read the bill
itself--the part I will have to look for is what they mean by saying (in
the summary I just read) that they are *not* doing "full federalization" of
pre-1972 recordings.  I want to see what is being left of the "old law"
here.  And if passed, will Issa's bill truly get rid of the terrible state
law that has grown up around pre-1972 recordings?  (from the summary, its
seems like the answer may be yes).  The focus is on digital broadcasting of
"oldies" here, not necessarily the same concerns that ARSC has about
historical recordings.

It is false to couch this bill (even its title) in terms of saving starving
older pop artists who are supposedly being cheated in their old age.  Only
a tiny amount of elderly artists own their own recordings--such recordings
are instead overwhelming owned by record companies and other business
interests, and that is mostly who is going to reap the rewards of such
legislation, if it is passed.  A few artists were smart enough to retain
and maintain ownership of their own recordings, but that has to be a very
small number.

I never practiced as an entertainment lawyer myself, but I am familiar with
the problems they face (and used to face), to the extent they represent
artists.  One of their biggest problems was that most of their clients who
are popular artists had no concern about preserving any of the wealth from
their "big" years into their later years--they want to live like "rock
stars," like there is no tomorrow, without the kind of planning that will
preserve some of the wealth for later, when they are no longer so popular
(that wheel almost inevitably turns--very, very few of them become
permanent icons who can keep performing at the same level for the same
income, selling the same number of records, on into their later years).  In
may ways, the entertainment lawyer's job was to save them from themselves
as much as possible.  That vision of the "entertainment client" is poles
apart from artists who have enough foresight to maintain ownership of their
own recordings.  And you also have to remember that very few "emerging"
artists have enough clout (bargaining power) to substantially alter the
deals that are offered to them by record companies.  E.g., Barry Gordy at
Motown was fairly ruthless with his artists in maintaining the wealth for
himself and the record company.

Today there are only a handful of "majors"--giant conglomerates--that own
the vast bulk of prior popular recordings--likewise for classical and
jazz.  The majors have been lobbying and working for years, worldwide, to
extend copyright periods, limit fair use, and otherwise skinny down the
concept of public domain for recordings (which today barely exists in the
US).  They have largely succeeded, and the new proposed legislation needs
to be viewed in that light as well, to see what's in it for them, while the
law is dressed as supposedly protecting starving older artists.

Best,
John Haley


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Leggett, Stephen C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The Pre-1972 beat goes on.....
>
> http://issa.house.gov/news-room/press-releases/reps-issa-
> nadler-introduce-pre-1972-copyright-fix
>
> https://issa.house.gov/sites/issa.house.gov/files/CLASSICS%20Act.pdf
>
>
> http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/7873137/with-bills-
> on-capitol-hill-the-music-bizs-road-to-recovery-requires-lawmakers
>