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 
> 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:
>> 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]