Copyright sings a different tune

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4724664.stm


Copyright sings to a different tune
Keeping time limits on copyright could open the way for a new wave of
creativity, argues Kay Withers of the Institute for Public Policy
Research think-tank.

Musicians have had a busy couple of weeks, moving from one major music
ceremony to another in the hope of picking up an award.

From UK artists such as Franz Ferdinand and Coldplay rapidly gaining
international recognition, to the Artic Monkeys record-breaking album
sales, the strength and vibrancy of new talent emerging in the UK
means this year's round of award ceremonies should be a time of
celebration for artists, the listening public and the music industry
alike.

But the message from the industry is one of impending gloom. They are
warning that they face one of the biggest challenges to their survival
since popular music exploded in the 1960s.

In 2013, copyright in the sound recording of the Beatles' first album
expires, as it will for recordings from Elvis Presley, Cliff Richard
and other performers of the same period.

Of course, copyright of all works expires at some point. This is for a
clear reason. Copyright is designed to provide reward and incentive
for creators and innovators. It also recognises that innovators and
creators build on works from the past, and that they need to access
these works if art, culture and science are to flourish.

Who loses out?

In the midst of an explosion in digital music sales, and a flourishing
new music scene, industry executives are lobbying the UK government to
extend protection for sound recordings from 50 years to 95.

Creativity in music, film and literature is a cyclical process. New
artists borrow from the past to create works to be valued in the
future
This, they say, would protect existing revenue streams that bands like
the Beatles and the Rolling Stones provide.

The argument for the extension of copyright is often presented as
win-win situation for all. If we do not extend copyright, then the
Beatles' sound recordings could be packaged and released by anybody,
and the recording artists would not receive any money from future
sales of the songs they recorded and made popular.

So it hurts the recording artists, the record company who owned the
original copyright, and the consumers who will be faced with a deluge
of low quality Beatles compilations.

But it is not actually the case that the artist will necessarily lose
out. While copyright in the sound recording itself may be due to
expire, copyright in the original work belonging to the songwriter
lasts for the length of their lives plus 70 years.

For each sale of a Beatles recording, the owner of the copyright in
the original work will continue to receive payment until this expires
many years from now.

What will disappear is the right of individual record companies to
maintain a monopoly on release of certain recordings. And this is what
worries them.

The Beatles sound recordings emerging from copyright protection will
no doubt prove a financial loss to some sectors of the UK's music
industry. But it could also provide opportunities for other
businesses, and for consumers alike.

Past influences

Creativity in music, film and literature is a cyclical process. New
artists borrow from the past to create works to be valued in the
future. In years to come, young songwriters may be looking back at the
work produced by this years' crop of new talent - the Artic Monkeys,
KT Tunstall, the Magic Numbers - and inspired by this will themselves
create new, innovative works.

But for government, the difficulty is in getting the balance right.

On the one hand, a powerful industry lobby, responsible for many UK
jobs, says it needs this change in copyright law to survive. On the
other, it is not the government's role to protect one section of
industry at the expense of innovation in another.

It is what is sometimes called the Goldilocks problem - the need to
provide copyright protection at a level that is not too much, not too
little, but just right. An independent review team in the Treasury is
now considering these problems and will report in autumn this year.

The debate surrounding whether it is right or wrong to increase
copyright term is often presented as a choice between all or nothing:
either continue to protect the Beatles' songs or give them away for
nothing, and allow artists to be ripped off and the music industry to
suffer.

But this false polarisation is not very helpful. The majority of works
produced in the 50s and 60s are no longer of any commercial value.
Many are out of circulation and unavailable to would be listeners.

Opportunities offered by the internet and digital distribution could
allow niche providers to re-package and re-distribute old recordings,
bringing previously 'lost' creative content to contemporary ears.

If you walk into a bookshop you can buy a copy of Dickens' Bleak
House, or Austen's Pride and Prejudice for about £1.50. The copyright
in these works has long expired so different publishers can compete to
offer them at lower prices. Consumers have benefited from the works
being out of protection.

So perhaps the expiration of copyright in sound recordings for the
Beatles should not be seen as the end of music. Instead it could be
the end of an era, perhaps.

It arrives at the start of new careers for new artists producing new
and exciting music.

Kay Withers is a Research Fellow on the Digital Society & Media team
at the Institute for Public Policy Research

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/4724664.stm

Copyrights expire?

apparently in Europe they do.

I would find copyright laws so much easier to understand if the artist owned 'em instead of the labels...

An artist OWNING something?!? Hehe, next thing you know, the person that LISTENS to the music wants to OWN it too... Great stuff...

In all seriousness though, the article made a great point about competition and monopolies. Since their costs would be similar I don't see there being a lot of price difference, perhaps a couple of dollars. Who knows - the way they package it may well make all the difference... Get your Beatles mixtape for $15, the Beatles guitar riffs sample CD for $12, or a copy of their Greatest Hits for $14...

I actually believe that the orginal Beatles Master Recordings' copyright should be, could be extended, as long as they contunue to generate money. Yes, a bit against some of what most at this site believe. But IF John, Paul, George, Ringo and their hiers owned the copyrights that would make sence (think about it from an artist's point of veiw, what if yer music was still selling in yer old age?) And, Im talking about the Beatles' recordings, after a certain amount of time ANY artist could re-cover the songs without seeking permission, nor paying a royality. That part of the copyright shouldnt last for long at all.
With a fat-cat corperation behind it all, copyright laws stop making sence to me. After the artist dies how often to heirs make money? When can I sell my live cover of Helter Skelter without seeking Capitol's permission? other questions come to mind... but I need mo' coffee before making a better post.

InsaneWayne,

Even if the artist himself/herself owned their own copyright, it should still expire after a reasonable time period.

Think about it; suppose we were talking about life-saving drugs or new propulsion technologies instead of music. Obviously, the inventor of such things deserves a period of time where they have exclusive rights to make the money (in the case of drugs & other inventions these rights are called 'patents' instead of 'copyrights'). But should the general population expect to have to pay high prices for important medical drugs for years on end just so that the original inventor and his/her heirs can keep reaping the rewards? And think how much more difficult it would be to invent better medicines and technologies if patents lasted as long as copyrights do.

My opinion has never changed. Copyright should be non-transferable and never exceed the life of the artist creator.

This is a true balance. It rewards creativity while giving back. This was the original premise of copyright. By gaining the rewards of a creative effort, there is an incentive to create.

I am totally against anybody else having this claim. What could a label possibly "create" other than the process of marketing and stamping a disc. There is no creativity to protect for a label. As far as heirs are concerned....Let 'em create their own works. Name me any other human effort that goes to any length to try to gaurantee an income for generations of relatives, business managers and corporate investors by granting monopolies. I've always felt that this is the greatest flaw in the logic and it has spawned the greed we now must deal with.

Let the Elvis copyrights expire. Having these works in public domain will not hinder the original artists (of which Elvis is not a member since he couldn't even read sheet music let alone write it) from being creative. Let the Beatles stuff have some protection until the surviving members have left us.

Remember, copyright is not about protecting business models and profit lines....Its about rewarding creativity. I could care less about the market value of these works. We have whole new generations of creativity at risk as long as these works are kept out of reach in a vain attempt to keep the market small.

I've always felt that most of this hording of works is not about the market value of the works but more about controlling the exposure to them. I call it the diamond mind business model. It goes like this...

Diamonds are not rare. They are mode to appear that way in order to keep the price high. A small number of companies own all the productive mines. THey hord the mass majority of them and release small amounts. These are supported my a marketing campaign that constantly reinforces the need to buy these little pieces of carbon. Since the supply is controlled by a few, then you must pay a premium to get one. To not get one is a sign that you have less than acceptable feelings for your loved one (by putting them at risk os social ridicule?).

The music industry leeched on this concept long ago (surprise...surpirse, they stole this idea too) and have fought very hard to preserve it. Recently, a synthetic diamond was produced that is almost literally the same as the ones pulled from the mines. The diamond companies are working in panic mode to find ways to discredit them. Why? Because it will destroy their business model.....The copycats of this business model have the same problem with the Internet. The danger for the record industry never came from kids copying songs. It comes from the ability of their market to get just as good a quality (and in many cases better) without their involvement. Their exclusive market is now being exposed to the other 95% of the music available and they don't control (or profit) from any of it.

If you think back to all the crap spewed, you will remember hearing that one of the most dangerous effects of sharing misuc is that it devalues their product. This is actually true. It is a marketing fact that if the same number of customers are given competitive choices cost becomes a factor, forcing the prices down. Also, the more choices offered to a market the smaller the market share per producer. Given that market is driven by supply and demand, having a wider selection will cool demand resulting in the loss of unrealistically high returns on investment.

Sorry for the long speech, but copyright terms are what brought me here and they are centeral to why I continue supporting this cause. DRM is nothing more than trying to lock in perpetual copyright and keep the market effectively comtained. I fully believe that once one BUYS a copy of a work they are a copy owner. As long as they don't directly profit from the work (sell copies or try to claim any exclusive ownership rights) they are intitled to do as they please. This includes reverse engineer software to understand how it works or to move media around to use it when and where they wish without paying anything extra.

"Copyright to Beatles, Elvis recordings to expire in 2013 "

Well, that's nice to know, considering that according to the Myan's, Edgar Cacey and others, the world is supposed to end in 2012.

lol, let's change the title to "SR Copyrights due to outlast the planet Earth itself!"

Totallyfrustrated,

Long speech, but a good one. The only item which I would find contestable is the notion that copyright should not be transferrable. I do understand your 'angle' on this notion, and you are not alone - others at this site have suggested the same.

But if copyright is non-transferrable, then it becomes much less valuable to the artist and may hinder him/her. Like it or not, in the real world, transferring the copyright is usually the only way that an artist can gain exposure on a grand scale. This is often a faubian deal, to be sure. But allowing copyright to be transferred does give more flexibility for a work to be marketed. If copyright is to be de-valued, it is far better to do so by shortening the copyright term than to limit the ability to transfer the copyright.

Bufo, you're compareing apples and oranges here, no one is going to die if they don't hear Elvis sing Hound Dog three times a day lol. Musical works compare to literary works, poetry and books, and artwork. Also Im looking at two slighty differant "copyrights", the actual recorded performance of the artist, weather in the studio or live on stage, and the ability of the song to be re-recorded for profit by another artist.
I get a bit lost on copyright laws because no RIAA backed contract allows the artist to retain his copyright. Tool, Aerosmith, and such do 100% of the creative work, they should own their copyrights, Brittney, Madonna and others are produced acts, perhaps they have nothing to argue. If MtDew hires me to write a song for them (I don't like Coke) then MtDew should own that song. The automatic loss of copyright in record contracts is unjust.
I like TotallyFrustrated idea that complete copyright should last until the artist's death (or in the case of a band, every member who can claim copyright). After the death any band can cover the song for profit without paying a royalty and without seeking permission. But, I think the Original Artist's recordings should still be given some protection. However at this time simple copyright infringement (non-profit CD burning, filesharing) should also no longer be a crime.
Are ya with me so far? yeah, I got lost reading my post lol
Elvis is dead, any orginal music he wrote should be public domain now. (Elvis didnt write most of his stuff, so this is a poor example) Any band can cover the song without Lisa-Marie's permission nor her recieving any money. But if you go to the store and buy an Elvis CD Lisa-Marie gets paid.
What about 500 years from now? I mean, people ARE still buying Mozart and Beathoven right? If you can find the recording of Mozart performing one of his songs should his great-great-great grandchildren share in that royalty? But me covering Bethoven's 5th on electric guitar should be free for me to do.
We also need to consiter Musical Plays and other works in our thoughts, not just bands such as Aerosmith and the Beatles. Leflaw posted Sony's contract, bands such as the Beatles, Aerosmith and Tool are NOT "works for hire", as may be the case at other times.... even the names of these bands are Trademarked by the label not the band members....
Im starting to rattle on here now...

IMHO, neither the sound recording, nor the underlying song itself should have a copyright that lasts beyond time of publication for more than 7 years (+ another 7 if deliberately renewed.)

If you can't earn your money in that amount of time, then forget it, (you likely wouldn't make the money anyways.)

Copyright itself is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly granted by the government in order to promote creativity by providing a monopoly FOR A LIMITED time. "Copyright" should be thought of as a granted protection instead of an automatic "right" because the NATURAL state of things is that IDEAS are NOT things (as in "property".)

Life of the author is too long. Life + 95 years (or wherever the heck it has been extended to due RIAA and corporates like Disney lobbying) is just ridiculous.

Folks, PLEASE get away from thinking of copyright in the same manor with "ownership". You don't OWN anything when you write a song or draw a picture. You merely hold a copyright to that work. There is no "OWNERSHIP" involved.

It is a VERY fundamental distinction that has deliberately been blurred by the entertainment industry and the like in their greed for dominance of the useful arts & sciences. Don't be blinded!

[preaching-to-the-choir alert in effect]

Mike is right. By the same token, the RIAA (and their complicit lackeys in the news media and on Capitol Hill) frequently refer to uploading/downloading of copyrighted files as "piracy" or "theft" instead of infringement. However, digital music cannot be stolen in the sense of depriving the owner of ownership; only tangible property can be "stolen" in the true sense of the word. (CodeWarrior has an adamant treatise awaiting any doubter!)

The thrust for a new world order would have so-called "intellectual property" be internationally designated as a right to be protected. But we're here to say the truth: namely, there AIN'T no such thing as "intellectual property" in the first place — only intellectual IDEAS (which, it may be granted, can have intellectual copyrights).

This conceptual distinction is needed to oppose the term “intellectual property”, which is more than an insignificant, trendy misnomer. It is an intentional blurring of reality which serves the purposes of the content cartel and the impetus for global government.
In both instances, CONTROL is the modus operandi.

No they won't. They will get the Disney extension.

You're right, Insanewayne - nobody will die if they don't hear Elvis. But then, are you saying that Patents should have a much shorter life than Copyrights? If I were to ask you why copyrights should have longer terms, you could answer that it is more critical to get patented material in the public domain (that is essentially you arguement, I think).

OK, fair enough. But if that is true, then it must also be true that it is more critical to INVENT patentable goods like life saving drugs. Well, if you agree with that premise, then how can we justify rewarding artists with longer monopoly terms for creating things which are less critical to the public good?
The scientist who wants to make money by inventing could argue that if patent terms were as long as copyrights, then he or she would have more incentive to create the life saving drugs in the first place.

Read the posts on the theft of the Lion Sleeps song from Africa.. same topic. Elvis boosted a lot of his music from black folks down south, and they "took" their music from the ancesters and so on and so on.. the difference here is that Elvis is DEAD.. (unless you saw him at a wal-mart in Tennessee last week..)and he made a gazillion If some of that music reverted BACK to public domain, all the four hundred Elvis impersonators in Vegas would be able to profit from it as well.

Strictly speaking the Constitution grants copyright to "authors and inventors".

How that "right" became transferrable is beyond me. As is how corporations became defined as persons. Must be lawyers involved.

Anyway 7yrs + 7 more renewable for a fee seems a reasonable copyright term to me.
95 yrs after death is insane, provides no incentive to create, stifles creativity, shrivels the public domain and benefits only the execs and shareholders of cartels who make campaign contributions.

Copyright is a BARGAIN between the creators and the public.

That bargain has been usurped by the publishers to the detriment of both the creators and the public.

DMCA and CTEA were both bought laws.

Nice post!

a good thread with a good exchange of ideas without any insults slung around
Elvis did as the Label's producers told him, I even said he was a bad example, altho a wonderful voice and talent, he was a part of the problem not the solution.
The men in my family either die young in combat or live well past 80 and then die from smoking, Corperations never die.
Our Framers never foresaw us listening to 50 year old recordings, things are differant now, but we've had more then 50 years of music history to look back at and we know better then to let the Majors and the RIAA tell our lawmakers what is right and wrong!

7 years is no time at all for huge corperation to wait to "steal" a song to use. Disney would be free to poke around here and use 7 year old postings in their movies for free and make millions. I'd hate to see Electric Gypsy fall victim to Mickey Mouse being a vampire...
"how can we justify rewarding artists with longer monopoly terms for creating things"
At times I think like an artist, and I try to figure in Anne Rice and Edger Allen Poe as artists also... Usually I like to fantisize that the artist owns the copyright, which changes how things should be from how they are with corperations holding copyrights.
Aerosmith's frist album is still selling, when should the public stop paying them for the product side of what they created? The day Aerosmith stops getting paid is when the stores will stop selling it. One can either get a copy of Aerosmith performing Dream On from a friend or buy the newest cover from another band. Some copyright is needed in order to keep Aerosmith's frist album in stores.
and then.... How long does a band have to wait until they can cover Dream On? In the year 2072 will someone posting the lyrics get sued by Steven Tyler's great great grandson?!?
Creating music is how Aerosmith makes money, its their job. A well paying job for them, yes, but with things the way they are it pays better for the corperation that owns em... Metallica (a very bad example at this site to use lol) didnt make a huge amount of money until their "Black" album hit, I have to wonder if their frist album sold better before or after the release of "black". What if an established band had covered Seek and Destroy before "black" came out?
What if this is YOUR song that someone else gets paid for?
How do I really think it should all work? I dunno... Im just tossing ideas out here and looking for feedback. We can look back and see some major wrongs and some rights, we can look forward to the future and see fairness for all.

"How long does a band have to wait until they can cover Dream On?"

You can do it today. You just have to pay the author (Tyler?) 8 cents for every copy you sell. That's the songwriting (words and music) copyright.

The sound recording copyright is the one that people are being sued for infringing upon. It didn't exist before 1972, so theoretically, none of the Beatles material should even be protected by it.