 |
 |
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]