Good luck with your lawsuits;-)

Under the 1976 US Copyright Act (which went into effect in 1978), there is no way publishers can contractually secure rights from songwriters for any time period beyond the first 35 years. And, there is no way a publisher can prevent the writer from exercising his right to terminate the grant of rights (the contract) he signed.

Most writers, however, limit the rights they grant publishers even further by limiting the term of their grants to even less than 35 years.

Writers, as the original owners of the songs they write, have total control of those rights and can do whatever they want with them from keeping them themselves or granting all or part of them to third parties. It’s up to the writer to understand what he owns… or to hire an attorney to advise him.

As for songs in the public domain … and certainly, The Star Spangled Banner is one of them … what you are seeing at ASCAP proves that the National Anthem is, indeed, in the public domain… meaning anyone can use it. The 250 claims are for the *arrangements* of The Star Spangled Banner. You have the right to claim your *arrangement* and I, and everyone else, have the right to claim our *arrangements.*

Just so you know, ASCAP pays very low rates for PD *arrangements* Record companies usually pay nothing to the arranger for *arrangements* of PD works.

“Sure, BUT those song writers AGREED to have their songs performed when the made the recording (of course depending on the contract) the artist either was paid an outright sum by the record company, or the songwriter gets a cut of the profit from the record company. The songwriter does not own the actual recording so going after such sites won’t hold much water in court.”

Were you stoned on something for the complete 20 year period, or did you actively ignore how the business works.

The rights to a song are totally separate from the rights to the recording.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the recordings have fallen into the public domain (meaning this site owner doesn’t have to pay for the rights to copy the recordings) … That doesn’t necessarily mean that the underlying songs are in the public domain. In fact, most of the songs I have seen on the site are still in copyright meaning the site owner has no right to make copies without securing licenses and paying royalties.

If the owner of the site has not secured licenses and he is sued by the owners of the songs, he has absolutely no defense and can kiss his bank account goodbye. He is clearly engaging in massive copyright infringement.

If I owned songs on this site, I’d take this site owner to court in a heartbeat.

Universal Music Opens Archives For Downloads
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/DJStory.aspx?DJStoryID=20060118DN005920

Okay fine, if the price is reasonable (and no .99 for older music is NOT reasonable) now how much will these files be DRM to death?
Can I transfer it to my ipod, OR my Zen Jukebox or my <insert name here> mp3 player and burn a copy on CD for myself? But like I said before, most record labels are stupid idiots. I hope I’m proven wrong but I won’t hold my breath.

Sure, BUT those song writers AGREED to have their songs performed when the made the recording (of course depending on the contract) the artist either was paid an outright sum by the record company, or the songwriter gets a cut of the profit from the record company. The songwriter does not own the actual recording so going after such sites won’t hold much water in court. I work in video production. We licensed music from a record label to use in a production. The songwriter got mad because he didn’t get a cut of that money and tried to sue us. The songwriter lost the case because the conflict was between the songwriter and the record company.

“The ‘long tail’ is an aggregators (as in record companies) market – individual artists won’t do well but those who control thousands upon thousands of tracks will find themselves with a tidy, low cost, business. It only makes sense for the labels to pump as much as they can into the market – especially as search gets more sophisticated; because, the material they have in the can that didn’t make it when it was originally released – because of the limitations on radio and TV time exposure – is undoubtably better than 95% of the armature material that would be its competition, and, therefore, would be more likely to attract audiences. ”

So you’re saying the artist is screwed but good thing the record labels can still make money???? Sure “Longtail” (I F*CKING HATE THAT BUZZWORD) will work ONLY if it has commercial potential in the eyes of the label. If record companies are so eager to jump on this LONG TAIL then why don’t they re-issue Wall of Voodoo’s “Dark Continent” or The Tube’s “Young and Rich”? HIGHLY commercial potential bands. they won’t even license those albums when the bands tried to release them THEMSELVES!

I was in the music/entertainment business for 20 years, record companies are run by idiots. They know business models and focus groups and wouldn’t know artistic talent if it bit them in the ass (why do you think people like Ashlee Simpson have a contract in the first place!). These websites are offering a service because the record labels are too stupid to do it themselves (oh we don’t know how to market it so we won’t release it). If the stuff is re-issued on CD, so be it, take the files down! But until then let the music play!

Universal Music Opens Archives For Downloads
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/DJStory.aspx?DJStoryID=20060118DN005920

Universal Music Group International, the world’s largest music company by market share, Wednesday said it was digitizing 100,000 previously deleted European recordings in order to make them available over the Internet. Universal will take recordings from what it claims is the music industry’s largest archive, including music from Marianne Faithfull, Fairport Convention, Nirvana and Jacques Brel.

As for your question, “what makes you think the artists on his site DON’T want their stuff available?” … I’m not talking about ‘artists’, I’m talking about the songs they sing… two very different things and two very different copyrights.

Many of the songs I see on this site are the ‘great standards.’ I personally know many of the owners of those songs. They are not happy when their songs get used without them getting paid. Songs receive the lowest amount in terms of royalties – Because they don’t perform or sell t-shirts or coffee cups… a good number of songwriters depend solely on sale of recordings of their songs to earn a living …

The site in question is not paying royalties … It is quite likely the site’s owner will hear from a lawyer – or lawyers – representing songwriters.

It used to be like that, partly, in the U.S.A. up tp 1978. At the time 28 year copyrights expired, you had to renew the copyright to extend it. But the renewal fee was so small that many works that were out of print or circulation were renewed and thus excluded from the public domain. Then renewals did not apply to recordings which had no copyrightss to begin with.

The purpose of having a renewal copyright period was that for that period the work’s legal ownership would revert to the author (beneficial owner). Music publishers obviated the law by having songwriters give away (for nothing mostly) their renewal rights as a condition for the publisher to manage or exploit the songs. It was a take it or leave proposition, even though it was illegal. It was a trap most songwriters fell in, considering that songwriters were told that song assignment contracts could never be ended unilaterally even when the publisher did nothing with the songs. Even today that is what publishers tell songwriters, after the songwriter signs an assignment contract and never before, of course, that the contracts are eternal and there is no way out when the publisher dose nothing with the songs.

Then in the early 1970’s, the music publisher lobby got Congress to eliminate the copyright renewal period and to greatly expand the copyright duration period, so that the publishers did no have to depend on breaking the law to get renewal rights and copyrights would last for the publisher, not 28 years as was the initial copyright period, but to author’ death plus 70 years, or about 4 times (on average) what it was, all with one stroke of the pen and allegedly to help auothors. Nothing was farther from the truth. It was to help music publishers in their robbery.

An article here describes how renewal rights were exploited illegally and massively by the music publishers:
BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM: RENEWAL RIGHTS APPROPRIATION
http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/

To resume, the idea of periodic renewal fees to maintain a copyright may be a good idea, but if history is a lesson, the idea will likely be abused by the music publishers as they see fit, as thet have always had a bag of trick to do as they wish and the public nd the songwriters have a history of being passive when abused.

BTW, almost all of the Latin American and the American national anthems are still copyright registered and licensed by the performance collectives, even though they are all in the public domain. The Star Spangled Banner alone has over 250 claimants in the ASCAP repertoire (see http://www.ascap.com ). Well, so much for the non existent public domain, made non existent by shady music publishers.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Though i think it’s a great idea and they should do it now.

If someone wants to maintain a copyright for the sake of being an artsy control freak instead of being “encouraged in the useful arts” (i.e., by $$$), let ‘em cough it up.

Additionally, most of the songs on the recordings in question are still very much in copyright with most of them being available on other recordings … Songs are copyrighted separately from the recordings … So, ‘Pastor’ Francis McPurvis, of vinylorphanage.com/ has every reason to hide his identity as he does on his site because he is clearly breaking the law by copying the old recordings – and the underlying songs – and making MP3 files available for download without a license.

Even, if for some strange reason, the recordings were made part of the public domain (which can only be done by the amending the copyright law) McPurvis would get is ass busted for illegally distributing the songs.

The ‘Pastor’ can expect a major lawsuit in the near future.

Thanks to NPR for outing this criminal.

I doubt there is such a thing a a common law copyright, let alone an enforceable one.

My reasoning (for USA only) is:

1. To file a copyright infringement lawsuit it must be done in federal court, with copyright infringement being the making of unauthorized copies of a copyright registered work. If a work is not copyright registered at the Copyright Office, the copyright infringement lawsuit cannot be filed. These are well established federal law principles.

2. Before 1972, when copyright protection was extended to recordings, record companies complained that they had no protection for the recordings and because of that the law was changed, to cover recordings.

3. Most pre 1972 recordings, in my judgement, belonged to record labels that have dissapeared or the licenses for the songs are no longer valid because they were issued to a no longer existing company and the licenses are not transferrable. For example, If record company B acquires all the rights to the records made by record company A, the song owner’s licenses issued to record company A are very likely no longer valid. I doubt very much that record company B could claim ownership rights to a recording without having a song license that is valid for the record company.

I personally have been asked for licenses for old pre 1972 recordings with songs we own. When I have requested proof that the previous record owner was up to date in royalty payments… well that was the end of it. As a result, I believe, of the new owner not having a license, it cannot claim ownership of those recordings. Then if I give a license, it cannot be exclusive, as others may also want to manufacture the same records. I believe a non exclusive producer of a recording cannot sue anyone for copying the recording. In essense, recording ownership cannot be claimed and enforced.

It was only about two years ago that the IP lawyer community was surpised when a NY state court established that there was a never ending “common law” copyright (in NY state) that apparently overides what every lawyer learned about copyright law and overides the very federal copyright law duration period and the very constitutional requirement that copyright duration be for a limited time.

Clearly this “common law” is a very confusing area of the law. Where I live the so call “common law’ copyrights (as opposed to ownership rights) do not exists.

I know, I have not clarified anything very much, but can anyone?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Mike