Copyright law article (1 Viewer)

[Ron1973]

I didn't find anything overtly political in the piece, so I'm going to go with the idea it's okay. We have lots of discussions about music rights in this forum as it deals with classic TV on DVD/Blu, so I thought this might be an interesting read for y'all.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/advocacy-groups-knock-unjust-copyright-extending-classics-act/

 

[Regulus]

F.U.B.A.R.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Ah, yes, Steamboat Willie's coming perilously close to the public domain.

Time for copyright terms to be extended even further!

Just look at the date things will be covered from, if I read the article correctly... 1927. A year before the cash mouse was created. Isn't that a coincidence?

EDIT: Surprisingly, this seems to be a music-only deal, though. Still, 140 years of copyright for, say, a Jimmie Rodgers recording? He's been dead since 1933. He hasn't been the one profiting since, well... ever. Sony's making something, though. And that's all these acts really benefit at this point... corporations who are keeping things under lock and key in their vaults.

 

[Ron1973]

Ah, yes, Steamboat Willie's coming perilously close to the public domain.

Time for copyright terms to be extended even further!

Just look at the date things will be covered from, if I read the article correctly... 1927. A year before the cash mouse was created. Isn't that a coincidence?

EDIT: Surprisingly, this seems to be a music-only deal, though. Still, 140 years of copyright for, say, a Jimmie Rodgers recording? He's been dead since 1933. He hasn't been the one profiting since, well... ever. Sony's making something, though. And that's all these acts really benefit at this point... corporations who are keeping things under lock and key in their vaults.

The man died before my parents were thought of! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his music and have the 6 CD set from Bear Family, but that's absolutely crazy!

 

[The Obsolete Man]

The man died before my parents were thought of! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his music and have the 6 CD set from Bear Family, but that's absolutely crazy!

My choices for an example were the Singing Brakeman or the Carter Family, since both were part of that first wave of Victor recordings of what would become country music in 1927. Rodgers made more sense, because he died just 6 years later. What good would copyright extention do for him? And if you want to say "but his family should profit!", well, his wife is most likely long dead. His children, the same. So who's profiting on this copyright extension that will have outlasted his life by 134 years?

A corporation that acquired his recordings decades after his death, and likely only paid pennies to his descendants, if anything.

We're long past even paying lip service by saying things like this are only to benefit the artists. Might it do some good for artists from the 50s and 60s who are still alive? Sure, for what time they have left. But after that? It's solely for corporations.

 

[Ron1973]

My choices for an example were the Singing Brakeman or the Carter Family, since both were part of that first wave of Victor recordings of what would become country music in 1927. Rodgers made more sense, because he died just 6 years later. What good would copyright extention do for him? And if you want to say "but his family should profit!", well, his wife is most likely long dead. His children, the same. So who's profiting on this copyright extension that will have outlasted his life by 134 years?

A corporation that acquired his recordings decades after his death, and likely only paid pennies to his descendants, if anything.

We're long past even paying lip service by saying things like this are only to benefit the artists. Might it do some good for artists from the 50s and 60s who are still alive? Sure, for what time they have left. But after that? It's solely for corporations.

I know we're delving off topic from the group we're in, but I completely agree. Make no mistake, I love Rodgers and The Carter Family. I'm 44 years old; I'll be 45 this year. I'm sort of a freak. Nobody outside of dedicated historians know them. I have an 83 year old friend I hang out with sometimes; he knows them obviously, but I would dare say the majority of his contemporaries are either deceased, and those that aren't deceased aren't likely to be buying CD's or music in general.

I just think of how it aggravates me to no end to see music replaced in shows. "Pretty Woman" by some unknown band got replaced in The Beverly Hillbillies. Was CBS too cheap to license it, or did the powers that be want a gazillion dollars for a less than one minute snippet of the song? Either way, something has to change.

 

[BobO'Link]

I know we're delving off topic from the group we're in, but I completely agree. Make no mistake, I love Rodgers and The Carter Family. I'm 44 years old; I'll be 45 this year. I'm sort of a freak. Nobody outside of dedicated historians know them. I have an 83 year old friend I hang out with sometimes; he knows them obviously, but I would dare say the majority of his contemporaries are either deceased, and those that aren't deceased aren't likely to be buying CD's or music in general.

I just think of how it aggravates me to no end to see music replaced in shows. "Pretty Woman" by some unknown band got replaced in The Beverly Hillbillies. Was CBS too cheap to license it, or did the powers that be want a gazillion dollars for a less than one minute snippet of the song? Either way, something has to change.

I mostly know or Rogers and The Carter Family because my dad is a huge Grand Ole Opry fan. That's pretty much all we listened to in the car until my sister and I were old enough to take over the radio, or at least ask for something different for a bit. As I got older I gained an appreciation for their music and own several recordings from each. But, like you, I'm a bit of an anomaly with that. Few of my contemporaries have heard of them - I'm 63. A few of the older country acts gained some recognition in the late 60s/early 70s with the "Country Rock" music phase, but those 2 were not among them. I used to drive around the college campus with them, and other Grand Ole Opry stars blaring from my stereo (40 watts a channel pushing a pair of 8" Jenson speakers - in a Corolla - it'd make your ears ring).

Copyright laws in this country are just plain stupid. They're absolutely aimed at protecting corporate profits and do little for the artists who create musical works. And it seems that those laws vary all over the world with some countries not recognizing copyrights from others and applying their own, local, versions. It's pretty much a mess and needs to be thrown out and reworked to actually protect the artists worldwide.

The "big" money is in "publishing" rights, which is the driving factor in many TVonDVD release issues. Essentially owing the song itself, not the actual recording. Paul McCartney taught that to Michael Jackson, much to his later chagrin. Jackson took it to heart and managed to purchase the rights to The Beatles recordings from under McCartney.

Read about the history of The Beatles catalog licensing here. McCartney finally did regain the rights last year, although it wasn't via copyright laws but a private settlement.

 

[Neil Brock]

Might makes right! British copyright law was a reasonable 50 years. That was until 2002 when it was one year away from the music of a very successful and profitable band's music was about to enter the public domain. Miraculously, it was extended just in time.

 

[BobO'Link]

I didn't find anything overtly political in the piece, so I'm going to go with the idea it's okay. We have lots of discussions about music rights in this forum as it deals with classic TV on DVD/Blu, so I thought this might be an interesting read for y'all.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/advocacy-groups-knock-unjust-copyright-extending-classics-act/

I just read that article. The "solution" sounds like just as much of a mess as we already have - plus the negative of "protecting" product which truly should enter PD status in a couple of years, if not already (looking at you mouse guy...).

 

[smithbrad]

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue. In one sense, I agree that music that has been out of circulation for decades shouldn't be held up from use when it prevents the release of other material. On the other hand, I can't see telling Paul McCartney that the music he wrote is no longer his while he is still alive and well (i.e., based on the earlier 50 years rule).

How do you create a single ruling that supports both scenarios? How do you measure which category something goes in? Can ownership be maintained while developing an equation that takes into consideration age and continued relevance. Where a song rarely accessed in 50 years has a pre-calculated value in line with its stature within the industry that makes it more affordable to license. I have no answers, but can see why no easy answer is forthcoming.