“No, Captain. Illogical and irrational.”

Because it’s not to keep people from pirating these movies, or to defeat hackers, it’s to get their toe in the door so that they can later push for more control over what people can and can’t record. Hackers will defeat it and pirates will still download, but the general public, who are generally dumb as a post about these types of things, will find themselves being more and more restricted.

Once the MPAA gets this allowed for early release movies, the regular PPV companies will be asking for it too. Then the pay cable channels will be knocking on the FCC’s door asking to be allowed to prevent people from recording their original shows. TV networks will follow later asking for permission to block the recording of specials and sporting events, like the Olympics, and so on.

This is just the first step in taking away the public’s right to time-shift programming so that the corporations can sell that ability back to them. “Record all the network TV you want for only $5 more a month!”

Sound paranoid? That’s what you would have said in 1980 if I’d told you that one day TV shows would have logos in the corner, popup ads across the botton of the screen, no closing music, unreadable credits and three times as many commercials. Wait and see…

This is what happens when you sell a pocket computer and call it a “phone”.

If she wants to be as famous as Britney, she could start by wearing short skirts with no underwear in public, then move up to getting drunk at nightclubs and swapping clothes with random people she just met. Of course, if she really wants to be compared to Britney, she needs to marry a loser, squeeze out a couple kids, do a bunch of drugs, have an affair with a photographer, then go crazy and shave her head.

Tell her to start with crotch-flashing and she can see how it goes from there…

Acually the Paul McGann TV movie doesn’t count at all as far as I’m comcerned, although the new show seemes to count it. You’re right though. I’m guilty of relying on TV Rage, which listed 27 seasons. I was in a hurry and didn’t check.

The issue now is not if the law is changed, but what the law says to implement the change. In other words, the mechanics.

I said in another related post that a 5-10 year period was right.

I must reconsider. 5-10 year period is too long, considering the new reality that marketing costs can be almost zero if no physical media is used to distribute the music. A song recording can be marketed by simply placing the recording for downloading on a web site.

Thus, a 3 year period is more reasonable.

Of course the issue id not if the recording is marketed. It is the payment of royalties. If no “adequate” royalty payments are received, the recording rights should revert to the “artist”.

What is an adequate royalty? I propose that it be 100 hours of work at minimum salary per year. In the USA, using a minimum salary of $7/hour, that would be $700 for each of last three years, or $2,100. If the artists has not been paid $2,100 in royalties for the past three years, he or she gets the ownership of the recording.

Contractually the arrangement can be improved for the artist (but not the label). If an artist can set the minimum at 1,000 hours ($21,000), fine. Perhaps major artists can have the negotiating clout to get whatever they want.

The more complex issue is who is the artist of an multiple artist recording?
This should be set in the recording contract. For example, for a rock band, it could be the band owner. For an orchestra recording it could be the director.