Copyright bomb about to explode
p2pnet news view P2P:- “It’s written into the statute,” says American entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. “It’s just a matter of time.”
That’s the US Copyright Act of 1976 which could “bring another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so,” he says.
He’s quoted by Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired under Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries. And that pretty much sums up what the story predicts will become not so much a bad headache for the corporate music industry as a major disaster.
Explains the post »»»
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,” said [Greg] Eveline [of Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law]. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now . You’ll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”
Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window), according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave the copyright grant where it is â albeit with much more favorable terms.
“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said Bernstein. “If they have a publishing company that’s making money for them, and collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a higher royalty. Or if they’re unhappy, they get it back.”
And, “It’s every type of copyright,” Wired has Bernstein saying, pointing out the only exceptions are derivative works “such as movies based on novels that include certain music in their soundtracks, because Congress decided it was unfair to ask publishers to give those licenses back to artists and authors”.
So now Big Music two options, “neither of which looks promising” »»»
- Continue to claim albums are compilations (”Everybody kind of snickers at that [strategy],” said Eveline.
- Re-record sound recordings to create new sound recording copyrights, “which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination”.
In the story, Eveline characterizes the labels’ conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”
“This might sound familiar, because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs — right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs,” says Van Buskirk, adding:
“If the labels’ best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they’re suing other companies for using, they’re in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride.”
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Wired – Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries, November 13, 2009
BlueBeat.com – The Beatles: 21st century holdouts, November 9, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I bet you that they are going to corrupt enough government representatives to pass another unconstitutional law of course unconstitutionally retro-active (just like Disney did) and they will continue to do so until someone kill all these parasites one by one.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
The music industry is a tool of terrorism.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Whatever happened to releasing the work to the public domain after the term expires? This was the original intent in the Constitution when it provided for copyright.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
SOME TIPS ON TERMINATION OF SONGS
This is an important issue for songwriters because that vast majority (99% ?) of songs assigned to music publishes with commercial potential are utter commercial/economic failures because the music publishers do not promote them or even have music scores available anywhere.
These failed songs have no business belonging to publishers that caused their failure and should return to the songwriter who may then try another publisher or self publication-promotion. As to termination…
The right to terminate assignments to music publishers is very old. In addition to the thoroughly useless and ignored (by publishers) termination rights in the copyright law assigness have clear rights to terminate an assignment whenever the publisher fails to suceed in adquately exploiting a song. This is so even if the assignment contract prohibits termination, because such a contract clause is unreasonable.
The purpose of a songwriter in assigning a song to a publisher is to make money, a lot of it. Only a lot of money can justify parting with the ownership of a song and depriving his/her heirs of their right to inherit the song.
Publishers don’t know yet that by accepting songs in exchange for nothing or in exchange for minimal advance royalty payments they are scheming to violating inheritance laws which prevent people from donating o giving property for nothing or for one dollar prior to death because such a donation deprives heirs of what is due them. This is another reason for terminating song assignments.
Another reason for terminating an assignment is that the music publisher itself or specific songs it has may be sold to an unqualified publisher located in say, Afghanistan, or the music publisher may move to a tax haven, something that may be allowed by the assignment contract clause but that is not reasonable.
The key is to find an honest lawyer to fight the termination if the publisher is not reasonable (usually the case) and doe not want to return the song rights.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 am
I do not know why, but I have this big friggin grin on my face. Hope it does not fade away.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“do not promote them or even have music scores available anywhere.”
I wonder how a music score for all these tons of music-less rap “music” look like!
November 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I wonder how a music score for all these tons of music-less rap âmusicâ look like!
Who said rap is music?
Rap is music like boxing is entertainment and tobacco is good for you.
Like boxing and tobacco, rap is the product of the brainwashing we call advertising.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“So now Big Music two options, âneither of which looks promisingâ”
You forgot the third option;
3. Ignore it and claim that you still have therights to the music.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
3. Ignore it and claim that you still have therights to the music.
That’s what is always done by mass copyright holders (scam artists publishers).