Copyright expiring - record companies panic

[rayh]

Inspired by this story.

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.

Note this is just the copyright on the sound recordings themselves, not the copyright in the orginal work.

The UK recording industry is lobbying the government to extend the copyright period from 50 to 95 years.

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.

But it is more that this is the case :-

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.

There is benefits to comsumers as well, as the doing away of the Net Book Agreement showed. Different companies will compete to offer the recordings at lower prices. Maybe the cheaper products will be of lower quality, maybe not. But if gives the consumer the choice.

This smacks of the record industry trying to maintain a monopoly on their most popular artists. Fifty years sounds more than enough to me.

[Hostile_Dialect]

You’ll find no tears for record execs on this young face.

[jayjay]

It amazes me that your recording industry is watching our recording industry shoot itself repeatedly in the foot (by trying to desperately hold on to an outmoded business model) and isn’t saying to itself, “Wow…that’s something we should probably avoid doing…”

[Sam_Stone]

@rayh

Inspired by this story.
Note this is just the copyright on the sound recordings themselves, not the copyright in the orginal work.

And when they bought the rights to that copyright, they did so knowing damned well when they would expire and how much time they had to recoup their investment.

The UK recording industry is lobbying the government to extend the copyright period from 50 to 95 years.

Of course they are, and it will probably work. And it’s totally wrong. The whole basis of copyright law is to provide for a reasonable period in which the artists can profit from their artistic creation, and then for that creation to become part of the common culture.

We’re heading for a future where our ‘culture’ is owned by various corporate interests, and therefore will be stifled from building on itself. Imagine how much poorer we’d be today if the works of Shakespeare or Beethoven were still commercial properties, owned by some corporate interest that didn’t even exist when the works were created. Can you imagine the chilling effect it would have had on music if the author of every new piece of music had to worry about whether his creation was a little too similar to four bars in a Bach composition?

We can’t let our own culture become a minefield of competing interests and legal entanglements. There’s a very powerful need for a healthy public domain of creative works.

This smacks of the record industry trying to maintain a monopoly on their most popular artists. Fifty years sounds more than enough to me.

The music industry and entertainment industry is all about monopoly power. That’s why they are the biggest contributors to various political campaigns.

[Odesio]

I am a staunch supporter of intellectual property rights but at some point the record companies are just going to have to let go. Hello! You guys have already made a ton of money off the Beatles and other artist for the last 40 years. You’re telling me, with a straight face, that when the copyright on these 50 year (in 2013) recordings goes out you’re going to be in some dire straits? Baloney. Apologies for the strong language but this stuff really gets me miffed. Copyright was never meant to be indefinate.

Marc

[Donovan]

IMHO, moves to extend copyright run counter to the original intent of copyright law - if you already have your cash cows and can continue to extend the period of time with which you can make money off of them, why bother cultivating new ones? If they see dire straights in the future, maybe they should be working to come up with new material to sell. I read an article a while back (no cite, but I will look for one - it was in a magazine) that indicated that the decline/stagnation of jazz* had two main causes, one of which** was that Jazz publishing houses discovered the huge amounts of money could make in re-releasing old Jazz recordings on CD rather than trying to cultivate new and upcoming artists - the return on investment was much higher dusting off old tapes, remastering them, and putting them on CD, then creating different collections, then creating collector’s editions, etc. Whether or not this is true, I find it an interesting theory.

*I am aware that the opinion that jazz is declining/dying is just an opinion. I myself don’t tend to like most of the stuff made after about 1980.

** the other one is/was the Marsalis brothers - and believe it or not, the author had an argument to back it up.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

see, this is a perfect example of an industry that has to change, but doesn’t want to because they lurve how it’s going right now.

internet downloads of free music? that can’t be done! we’ll go out of business!! (insert doom and gloom).

gee, that sounds a lot like…the radio…yes, music companies had the same problem…
they thought “gee, if they get music over these newfangled airwaves for free, why are they going to want to buy vinyl records?”

well, we still did, and you guys got heaping shitload after hpeaing shitload of it…

now now that music sucks (purely an opinion, but some have shown disgust at music as a whole as of recent years), record sales are down. “free downloads are the culprit!”, the execs will undoubtedly say.

bullshit.

what do you want when you put out an inferior product? in the mid 90s, i’d buy cds that had onle one or two interesting songs on them…the joke was on me. now they’ve got to (gasp!) work in the studio and tour???

now, i realize that record companies, as a business model, suck giant testicles for the artist, and are loaded with candy and toys for music companies. they’re being forced into having a business revolution…they’ve got to blow up their old model and erect a new one in its stead. the old way of doing things don’t apply any more because of technology. i’ve had many old roommates that were music junkies burn dozens upon dozens of cds. they’ll go and buy the artists they support or the cds they like in order to support the musician, though.

with all that being said, i am in favor of intellectual property rights. yes there should be a limit to them, and 50 years sounds about right. this is a case in which the law needs a rewrite…and the record companies are going to try and use every dollar they’ve got to restrict them…instead of losening them…and changing.

[Ms2001]

@MGibson

I am a staunch supporter of intellectual property rights but at some point the record companies are just going to have to let go.

Ha! Good luck with that.

Jack Valenti wished for copyrights to last “forever less a day”, and the RIAA/MPAA are full of people who share his views. They will never let go. Copyright terms have never gotten shorter. I forsee only two possible outcomes:

1. A breaking point is reached, and copyright is abolished (or at least severely hobbled, i.e. the pet cat you had when a work was released might still be alive when the copyright expires).

2. Big Content retains control over essentially everything created from the beginning of the 20th century onward, and there may never be another Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Brothers Grimm - someone whose works can be freely enjoyed and built upon by future generations.

[LonesomePolecat]

You know, the really scary thing is that these people are essentially demanding more or less unlimited control over our culture and the flow of information in the mass media. Does anyone seriously believe this control will never be abused?

I’ve heard that most records make little or no money for the artists, who make most of their money from concerts and live appearances. Apparently the same smoke-and-mirrors accounting and bookkeeping which cheats so many in the film industry is used in the recording industry as well. Does anybody out there know if this is true?

[Thudlow_Boink]

But… but… if the record companies no longer hold a monopoly on Elvis and the Beatles, they might actually have to find somebody new that people want to listen to! :eek:

[Hostile_Dialect]

@LonesomePolecat

I’ve heard that most records make little or no money for the artists, who make most of their money from concerts and live appearances. Apparently the same smoke-and-mirrors accounting and bookkeeping which cheats so many in the film industry is used in the recording industry as well. Does anybody out there know if this is true?

My rock history teacher* talked about this in class just yesterday. He said that from record sales and radio play, writers get rich but artists just get famous, and yes, the artists have to tour to make money. He also noted that the Rolling Stones started out as a cover band, and started writing their music when they noticed (a) they were making the original writers rich and they didn’t have any money themselves, and (b) the Beatles were writing their own music and getting filthy rich.

*Bestest class I ever did took!

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Mr2001

1. A breaking point is reached, and copyright is abolished (or at least severely hobbled, i.e. the pet cat you had when a work was released might still be alive when the copyright expires).

This is a great idea. If the work is created by an individual, the copyright shall last as long as the youngest cat wholly owned by the creator at the time of creation is alive. If the work is created by a corporate entity, the corporate entity will designate a cat to act as the vessel of copyright.

Just think of the benefit to society in terms of advancements in veterenary medicine alone!

[LonesomePolecat]

@iamthewalrus(:3=

This is a great idea. If the work is created by an individual, the copyright shall last as long as the youngest cat wholly owned by the creator at the time of creation is alive. If the work is created by a corporate entity, the corporate entity will designate a cat to act as the vessel of copyright.

Just think of the benefit to society in terms of advancements in veterenary medicine alone!

Why not life of the author plus 25 years for works created by individuals, and 50 years for works for hire? Sounds reasonable enough to me.

[Ms2001]

@LonesomePolecat

Why not life of the author plus 25 years for works created by individuals, and 50 years for works for hire? Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Sounds totally unreasonable to me. Everyone who was alive at the time of a work’s release will be dead by the time it enters the public domain! That’s not a “limited time” unless you’re measuring on a geological time scale.

[Blaster_Master]

@Least Original User Name Ever

gee, that sounds a lot like…the radio…yes, music companies had the same problem…
they thought “gee, if they get music over these newfangled airwaves for free, why are they going to want to buy vinyl records?”

A similar legal battle also ensued following the creation of VHS. And again, they made gobs and gobs of money after they adjusted their business plan. Their fatal flaw is in their judgment of humanity. There ARE people who are not willing to pay for the music; but these same people existed before the advent of Napster. The fact is, these people are far outweighed the people who want to own legitimate copies and support their favorite artists by buying merchandise and going to concerts. Either way, based on past trends and common sense, I’d hope that their not THAT thick, or at least that ALL their marketing departments aren’t that incompetent.

I think their primary motivation is more underhanded. Since the advent of Napster, I’ve seen a plethora of independent labels and individual artists recording and releasing their own music. The problem for them is, technology has advanced to the point where independent labels are on par with the huge labels in terms of production quality; and this also puts them on par with the major labels in terms of distribution and marketing. This is where labels and Hollywood diverge, in that it still takes multi-million dollar budgets to make a movie that most people would want to pay to see (with a few exceptions, of course), but one can make a quality album and distribute it for magnitudes less than than major labels have been (and, in many cases, still are) spending. I think they’re afraid of their market share dropping significantly and, if they can succeed in squashing, this will create an all but a guaranteed monopoly.

[rayh]

@LonesomePolecat

Why not life of the author plus 25 years for works created by individuals, and 50 years for works for hire? Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Note that we are not talking about the copyright that the creating artist has in the work, the article is talking about the copyright the record companies have in the original recordings.

In 2013 anybody can release their own copy of the Beatles album Please Please Me although they will still owe royalties to the Beatles as writers, they would owe nothing to the original record label.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Blaster Master

A similar legal battle also ensued following the creation of VHS. And again, they made gobs and gobs of money after they adjusted their business plan. Their fatal flaw is in their judgment of humanity. There ARE people who are not willing to pay for the music; but these same people existed before the advent of Napster. The fact is, these people are far outweighed the people who want to own legitimate copies and support their favorite artists by buying merchandise and going to concerts. Either way, based on past trends and common sense, I’d hope that their not THAT thick, or at least that ALL their marketing departments aren’t that incompetent.

I think their primary motivation is more underhanded. Since the advent of Napster, I’ve seen a plethora of independent labels and individual artists recording and releasing their own music. The problem for them is, technology has advanced to the point where independent labels are on par with the huge labels in terms of production quality; and this also puts them on par with the major labels in terms of distribution and marketing. This is where labels and Hollywood diverge, in that it still takes multi-million dollar budgets to make a movie that most people would want to pay to see (with a few exceptions, of course), but one can make a quality album and distribute it for magnitudes less than than major labels have been (and, in many cases, still are) spending. I think they’re afraid of their market share dropping significantly and, if they can succeed in squashing, this will create an all but a guaranteed monopoly.

agreed. and i don’t necessarily think that the record company is full of idiots, even you might have gleaned that from my previous post. what they are is greedy and they want things to stay exactly as they are because the system is working for them. excellent points about independent music and the VHS recorder as well.

you can’t fight the technology, you’ve got to find a way to embrace it and make it work for you. shunning technology and holding onto an old (and therefore outdated) business model means you lose in the end, unless something changes.