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 
>   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]