
Sony Issues Dylan CDs to Extend Copyright - brkumar
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/arts/music/sony-issues-bob-dylan-recordings-to-keep-european-copyright.html?hp&pagewanted=all
======
mwexler
This reminds me of "The Fantastic Four" movie first released in 1994. Done in
about a month for a (relatively) meager budget by Roger Corman, the movie was
rushed out solely to keep the option to make a bigger film in the future.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film)> for more info...

------
nicholassmith
That's surprisingly honest from Sony labelling it as what it is, rather than
pretending whilst we all can see what it's purpose was.

Seems like another example of how much copyright laws need reworking when
things like this are par for the course though.

~~~
objclxt
It is worth noting that when the extension was first proposed the European
Commission paid for a report that recommended the law remain as it was, since
none of the arguments for a copyright extension were convincing. Thanks to
some rather effective lobbying this was ignored, although the proposal was
modified from the 95 years the industry _wanted_ to 50 years.

<http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf> is the report
itself, if you are interested in such things.

Interestingly, you'll find _certain_ artists much more passionate about
retaining their recording rights than others. Cliff Richard was one of the
major proponents for the EU extension, whereas Noel Gallagher is on the record
as not really caring at all[1]. It's not a coincidence that the former wrote
virtually _none_ of his songs, and the latter will own much more lucrative
publishing rights (which have the standard life+70 clause) in addition to
recording rights.

[1]: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-
extens...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-
cliffs-law-beatles)

~~~
alexkus
They're probably happy with 50 years.

Ask for 95 years and then get beaten down to 50 years and make them think the
other side 'won' something by getting it down from 95.

~~~
Avenger42
Not to mention all it really means is they're coming back to lobby again in 50
years, instead of 95 years. It's not like they win the battle once and don't
fight it again.

------
darkarmani
How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to
produce new works??

There isn't a single valid reason to ever extend copyright retroactively
unless the goal is forever copyright. Does the gov't at least get a portion of
the take when granting longer monopoly privileges?

~~~
rbehrends
Well, we're talking about Europe here, and the rationale underlying
continental European copyright is not the same as that for British/US
copyright.

Continental European copyright (which generally is not called "copyright", but
some variation on "author's right", such as "droit d'auteur") assumes that
authors have a natural, personal, inalienable right in their creations
(following Kant and Beaumarchais) because each creative work embodies part of
the author's personality.

In short: the continental European model treats copyright as a right, not as a
privilege.

Whether that right encourages people to produce new works is absolutely
irrelevant under that theory; its goal is to protect authors, not to
incentivize creation. Note, for example, that under French law, moral rights
are indeed perpetual, lasting forever (which does create the occasional
problem for museums).

------
trhtrsh
To be clear, these CD are publishings of _newly published_ works, in order to
get them grandfathered in to the copyright law of today. This publication is
not about copyright of already published works.

------
revelation
_recordings cannot benefit from the 20-year extension unless they were
published before the 50-year term expired._

I think I've found out what made me pause when reading this: they implicitly
assume that previous works will automatically have their protection extended.

Of course this kind of logic only works in the whole "copyright" kerfuffle of
corruption. Money can even buy you works in the public domain back, if you
missed to lobby in time for a new ex post facto extension.

------
weisser
It is a bit odd that they only half-heartedly tried to monetize this. It's
something I would have gladly paid for but instead I was forced to download a
torrent to hear the tracks (all fantastic - the songs from the Freewheelin'
album are much clearer than the actual release!).

It shocks me that they are essentially forcing fans to obtain this illegally
when they could have sold this set digitally with little effort (they are, but
only in a couple countries) or took a bit of time and made a desirable
physical release with a few photos and a nice box.

For me this is a perfect example of just how incredibly aloof the major labels
are. They want to extend a copyright but simultaneously cannibalize the future
sales that they were hoping the copyright would ensure.

~~~
gameshot911
>I was forced to download a torrent to hear the tracks.

"Forced", huh?

You don't have a _right_ to hear the songs. Two perfectly valid options are to
pay the going market rate on E-Bay, or to not listen to the songs. If Sony
wants to produce a limited number of records such that it is prohibitively
expensive for the audience to hear the songs, that _is_ their right. You were
in no way forced to illegally download their IP.

~~~
weisser
That's a binary way of looking at it. While what you say is 100% true it is
the exact way of thinking that is destroying the music industry.

You cannot make something that can be easily digitized prohibitively expensive
and think that it will somehow stop access. That is a laughable notion. Great
demand will cause it to be redistributed.

"Forced" is obvious hyperbole and I think you know that.

------
newishuser
This isn't really anything interesting unless you're a Dylan collector.

No boundaries of copyright are being pushed, no new faces of record label
greed are being shown, there's nothing to even talk about really. It's just a
major label releasing some work to opt into the 20 year extension on copyright
in the UK. With out the words Bob and Dylan this is just normal, lame, day to
day record label business.

------
rplnt
Is there any reason for copyrights so long? I see what labels gain from it,
but I guess the politicians approving these must have argued it to the public
somehow. Or did they just say that the labels want this law so they will
implement it?

I can't see any reason in it. The 50 years was way too long anyways.

~~~
laumars

        > Is there any reason for copyrights so long? 
    

The only reason is greed.

~~~
Domenic_S
What is greed?

Every day startups and investors sit in a room asking "how can we make as much
money as we can for as long as possible?" and they're celebrated on HN.

A big bad corporation asks the same question and is called greedy.

I don't get it.

~~~
laumars
It's greedy because no other industry expects a 50 year product life cycle.
And what's more, manages to get consumers to pay repeatedly for the same
product every 10 years.

You buy an album on vinyl, then cassette, than CD, then MP3 - that's 4
separate times you'd have paid for the exact same album if you were to do
things entirely legal (in the UK, it's still technically illegal to rip your
own CDs).

The whole thing is mental and it's at least part of the reason why piracy is
so prevalent - users have gotten so fed up of paying through the nose and not
owning the content, being subjected to unskippable anti-piracy adverts and
DRM, that they've turned to a subculture which can give them the content they
want in a format they want and without any anti-usage policies.

Going back to your start up comparison, free markets are driven by companies
constantly seeking customers by either the best, the cheapest or by offering a
unique element. This means that companies are constantly trying to out do each
other, and those that are the most expensive and provide the worst service go
out of business. Yet in the content industry, the big corporations are the
most expensive, and provide the worse service. And we're not just talking
about a bad service, we're talking so appallingly bad that they deliberately
set out to make the product crap (like I said, DRM, anti-piracy ads, etc). In
any other industry, those businesses would have gone under.

------
pacaro
Somewhat off topic, but the articles inconsistent and occasional use of "Mr
Dylan" makes me think of Blanche Devereaux in The Golden Girls referring to
"Mr William Shakespeare" and "Mr Burt Reynolds"

