Re-copyrighting remastered albums
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- “It seems like any argument that is made against Bluebeat can soon be used against the labels as well if they really do try to claim copyright on remastered albums.”
That’s the last sentence in a TechDirt post intriguingly entitled ‘Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat’s Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?’
Then, “A federal judge in Los Angeles granted Capitol Records` request for a preliminary injunction today against a San Jose-based website that had put the Beatles catalog online for digital downloading at 25 cents a track, without permission from the band or its record label.”
That’s the first sentence in a Los Angeles Times post slugged ‘Music download site BlueBeat hit with a preliminary injunction; site’s founder responds’.
Not so intriguing, until one gets to that part of the story referring to’site’s founder responds’ where, from Bluebeat’s Hank Risen, one sees »»»
Can you comment on today’s injunction?
I`m shocked, because we worked with EMI directly, and the RIAA [Recording Industry Assn. of America], in secret agreements to create these works lawfully. We`ve been doing so for many, many years. We were about to provide the court with such evidence that EMI knew we had in our possession. We worked with these guys.
The evidence wasn`t presented because we haven`t had a hearing, and the judge made a ruling.
In Techdirt, “As you hopefully know, back in 1999, the RIAA had a Congressional staffer named Mitch Glazier slip four words into a totally unrelated bill on satellite retransmission of broadcast TV, literally in the middle of the night, that effectively changed the way copyrights worked on songs by major label artists,” says Mike Masnick. [Note: By an amazing coincidence, Glazier went on to become an RIAA lobbyist.]
This, “effectively took much of the control out of the hands of the artists and handed it right to the labels,” says Masnick, continuing »»»
Remember that the next time the record labels claim they’re representing the best interests of artists. The use of four simple words, buried deep within the bill, which no one other than the RIAA knew about (seriously, those who voted on it later said they had no idea), turned songs recorded by artists signed to record deals to works made for hire. That meant that those artists could not reclaim the copyrights to their songs later on via a “termination” right, as any other content creator could. Glazier, the staffer who slipped this into the bill, ended up going to work for the RIAA just three months after putting this text into the bill. He was apparently hired with a $500,000 salary. Not a bad payoff for changing a key component of copyright law in the middle of the night when no one’s looking.
Luckily, soon after this passed a few people did notice, leading to a big uproar from artists, and an eventual backtracking from Congress, who never did believe the RIAA’s line that this “change” just “clarified existing law” rather than changed it entirely.
But, it’s important to remember all of this when discussing termination rights for music. Back in October, we had discussed how the songs of many top musicians were quickly approaching those termination rights, and some of the major record labels stood to lose the copyrights on some of their biggest hit albums. Wired recently ran a similar article about this “ticking time bomb,”Mesanna pointed out one little factoid down at the bottom: and I wasn’t going to post it, because I wasn’t sure it added much new, until reader
The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination. Eveline characterized the labels’ conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”
Labels already file new copyrights for remasters. For example, Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five’s Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was “New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium.”
Now, of course that sounds ridiculous, to hear that record labels can get a new copyright on just remastering a work… but, that sounds an awful lot like the argument made by Bluebeat.com, concerning its “psycho-acoustic simulation” re-recordings of famous songs, that enabled it to claim a new copyright.
“Now, the record labels are crying foul about this, and the vast majority of copyright law experts say that Bluebeat’s claim has no chance at all,” says Masnick, adding:
“But, if that’s the case, then the record labels own attempts to get new copyrights on remastered albums to avoid the termination rights might also be in jeopardy. It seems like any argument that is made against Bluebeat can soon be used against the labels as well if they really do try to claim copyright on remastered albums.”
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
TechDirt – Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat’s Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?, November 19, 2009
Los Angeles Times – Music download site BlueBeat hit with a preliminary injunction; site’s founder responds, November 19, 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 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Information brought to light can be revealing as you progreesively understand complex and fractured issues.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_self.jpg : “The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that “faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain”. There is no creative work in remastering a sound recording, so are these newly filed copyrights really valid?
November 20th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“But, if thatâs the case, then the record labels own attempts to get new copyrights on remastered albums to avoid the termination rights might also be in jeopardy.”
No because the corporation of parasites do not give a shit about the law and they will continue to corrupt judges, cops, juries, government officials to continue their criminal dead.
It does not matter though because some people do not give a shit about the law ever and are ready to spray these parasites with pest killers.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
If labels get the new copyrights on remasters, the public can now remaster their CDs and share them.
If the labels are denied copyrights on remasters, the works go back to artists.
Nice gambit…. unless you factor in corruption.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:08 am
So can I “remaster” movies by changing some hues slightly and share them?
Can I “remaster” a book by printing it on an innovative new paper?
Can I “remaster” another persons scholarly paper by changing the font and claiming it as my own?
Luckily, the Supreme court is very difficult to corrupt, so there is virtually no way this will stand….. but part of me hopes that it does so I can start remastering things.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:10 am
Oh so this is why we have been getting remaster after remaster after remaster…makes sense now but then again…….
“When I’m movin’ throuhg ma city I don’t stop for tha flashin’ lights”