
Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries - ALee
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/copyright-time-bomb-set-to-disrupt-music-publishing-industries/
======
oldgregg
As a libertarian I'm inclined to believe that the whole idea of IP is just a
farce made up by corporate interests. Maybe it wasn't like that in the
beginning, but no doubt that's what it is today.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act>

~~~
uriel
Copyright are government granted monopolies. That it has resulted in a huge
industry that lives out of rent seeking and produces nothing of value is
hardly surprising, and as technology threatens their rotten business models
expect their grip on government to tighten and to capture the whole legal
system.

~~~
silentOpen
Get a grip, the internet will win in the end. Technology is society's master,
not the other way around.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I'd like to think so. But honestly I think it could go either way. Not because
of technology but because of society's seeming apathy about the value of
liberty.

~~~
silentOpen
The relevant liberty here is the liberty of data. It is probably the most
widely exercised form of political protest/lawlessness/criminality today (drug
use being a close runner-up: liberty of body).

So, no, I don't think our apathy will allow the government to be overrun by
copyright thugs -- we already have the cure and it's already prevalent.

Now, these are fairly base liberties being totally about the individual:
"Copying data doesn't deprive. I want this data. Yay!" "Doing drugs doesn't
hurt others. I want to feel different. Yay!"

The trick will be to maintain our loftier ideals like freedom of speech,
freedom of press, and the right to privacy which I can very, very easily see
being taken away.

------
butterfi
Just because its so cool, Lessig's OSCON speech on copyright:

<http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/>

Favorite quote (paraphrased) "Disney didn't want others to do to them what
they did to the Brothers Grimm."

~~~
hugothefrog
Or indeed what they did to King Ludwig II.

[http://www.castles.org/castles/Europe/Central_Europe/Germany...](http://www.castles.org/castles/Europe/Central_Europe/Germany/germany7.htm)

Disney basically ripped off the design for one of their most iconic images..

------
CSunday
Copyright needs to be reconsidered, especially in this ever changing digital
world we live where, copies can be made in the blink of an eye.

On the other hand, Record Labels are evil. They continue to rip off artists by
claiming ownership of (the artist's work) through copyright, while giving the
'Content Creators' very little.

The RIAA's days are numbered...

Great post!

~~~
ig1
Artists willing and freely entered into contracts with the record labels. Many
artists continue to do so everyday.

Record labels aren't any more or less evil than VC firms.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
When I was young in the 70's artists either entered into a contract with the
few major labels, or they remained unknown. The oligopoly owned the big
studios, they had the major venues sewn up, and they had the radio stations
and DJs. That's not my idea of willingly and freely.

------
alec
I wonder how this applies to software development. The article says it applies
to works for hire; if there's 35-year-old code out there, could the original
author get rights to some part of the program back or otherwise block use of
the software? I could still see this being applicable for legacy mainframe
code.

~~~
roc
"works for hire" are an _exception_. The 'timebomb' only applies to people who
specifically sold their copyright. In the case of works for hire, the legal
author was always the corporation; the 'real' authors never owned the
copyright.

So no coder is getting the copyright back on his corporate code. Similarly,
almost no film or tv writers will get their copyrights back. Nor will most
musical acts from the more-modern era. (Somehow, dead tree publishing isn't
built on 'work for hire' contracts. So this _will_ likely let many print
authors renegotiate.)

Anyway, starting around the late 80s labels required recording artists to sign
the same sort of farcical 'work for hire' contract that other authors are
forced to sign.

( _"yeah, I wrote this while I was being paid a salary, receiving health
benefits and all that jazz. I certainly wasn't building it over the last three
years of working two jobs, playing dive bars and eating baloney-on-hand. I
just met you yesterday, sign this contract today and it springs fully-formed
from my head tomorrow -- just for you and without any of those pesky W2s or
insurance forms."_ )

That's why the music industry didn't push _too_ hard to get these old
recordings covered -- it's a temporary blip, not a threat to their current
model.

------
arnorhs
As a musician, I hope they go bankrupt as soon as possible :)

------
bartl
>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."

That sounds like nonsense to me. Remasters are only redone mixes of old
recordings, so if anything, the original artists own at least _part_ if that
copyright. Thus: this should be a joined copyright, with a right to veto: if
the original artist doesn't want the new remasters to be re-released, he ought
to be able to block it.

------
flipbrad
This has been a very long time coming though; so how many record deals made
since this Act was passed will have ignored the end of a revenue stream 35
years from when the recording is made, and gone in at what will now be a loss?
Clearly, accountants in the music biz will have been factoring/warning about
this for ages. A timebomb? I really don't think so.

Totally aside, I really don't see the logic in saying that digital remasters
are new works and warrant individual copyright protection. I don't know much
about the process, but I assume that it's merely a transformation/reprint of
an original recording, no?

------
dangrover
I'm working on a sheet music app (wonderwarp.com/opus) and it's been
irritating to discover how much old music is still under copyright. Like,
pretty much the entire genre of jazz. Hopefully more of it expires soon.

~~~
eggoa
Just to clarify, the issue in this article isn't exactly expiration or lapse,
it's just the possibility of transferring ownership.

------
daniel-cussen
I heard of this in my Copyright class, but it never hit me that this would
turn the tables on the RIAA companies.

