I’ll have to agree with this.

Andrew’s probably mentioned this before, but there is a fantastic book that Lawrence Lessig called Free Culture that deals with the absurdities of current copyright law. Also, it’s available as a .pdf under a Creative Commons license.

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

1) If you make your living from 700 pieces of music, and your job once every five years was to log in to your database, ’select all’ and press ‘re-licence’ - that doesn’t seem like such a hardship. Even if it took all day.

2) Putting together compilations of your music for commercial licencing surely constitutes ‘use’, and so the ‘use it or lose it’ clause wouldn’t kick in - though here’s probably the area that would require the most negotiation: those rightsholders who do not release music for commercial sale, but use it exclusively for sync and library music.

3) If a piece of music goes out of active use, and falls into the public domain, that allows for part of that track to be used as a hook or sample for a track that becomes very successful. And that’s good. In fact, it’s kind of the point.

In visual arts, this would be called collage. It would be people making culture out of other culture.

If you make a piece of music, and it is of no further commercial value to you - and once it goes public domain, someone uses your hook - you have lost nothing. You’ve contributed - but this was not going to have happened unless the song was public domain in the first place.

In other words - you exhausted its commercial potential as far as you were able to see - and then released it into the wild. Then someone else picked it up and found a whole new commercial potential. This is a good thing. You might be kicking yourself for not thinking of that particular avenue for return - but on the grand scheme of things, this is better for culture.

If you still wanted to earn money off the track - then work on ways to keep it in play and commercially available. 5 year term incentivises creativity and encourage active management of rights assets. Virtually permanent copyright prevents new tracks like the one you describe from ever being created, it encourages hoarding and it’s bad for creative and intellectual life.

In other words: I’m totally in favour of artists making money from their music. I don’t think that trumps the public good, and I don’t think that preventing people from using music in perpetuity ‘just in case’ contributes to culture.

Peter Blue,
I just had a look at your website. No Credits on the photos on your front page, to quote you “How do you think the creator of that sample feels, when somebody else earns money with his creation?” The copyright at the bottom of your page says it’s all yours. I guess that doesn’t include photographers.

I also notice that you are claiming copyright on CD Baby’s shopping cart, some how I think that they might have an opposing view on that.

Yes I am being petty, but if you are to lazy to credit the copyright of the “creative” people who are supporting you, why should anyone care about your rights. Address your responsibilities first by acknowledging the people’s shoulders on which you stand and then maybe we can have a discussion about your “rights”

You might also like to explain how quoting “Santana, Peter Green, Larry Carlton, Robben Ford,Booker - T, Jimmy McGriff, Pink Floyd,” in your meta tag keywords relate to your “rights”

You still don’t get why everybody wants to pay the plumber but not the artist. Surely you do.

What a horrible idea.
I am usually a big fan of your writing but I have to disagree with you strongly on this one.

A few points.
1. Artists and songwriters have a pretty low ratio of work to income. ie lots of work, very little income. Sometimes works sit on a shelf for a long time, untapped, and then become useful. That doesn’t mean that the work that was done 10 years ago is valueless, in fact, you’re saying that the value should automatically belong to “culture” which sounds very much like “the people” which usually means “the government.”

I don’t see how giving away someone’s work because they fail to register with a government entity would be incentivizing anybody other than vultures swirling around who want to release things and sell them without paying the people who made them. Sure you might get a few mash-ups that don’t make much money, which is why creative commons licenses exist, if the creators of the work wish to use that.

2. ” If you make a piece of music, and it is of no further commercial value to you - and once it goes public domain, someone uses your hook - you have lost nothing. You’ve contributed - but this was not going to have happened unless the song was public domain in the first place.”

This is simply untrue. Lots of recordings sit in flea market dustbins, get sampled by producers or DJ’s and then make lots of money for all parties. The DJ and the writer of the hook. You are suggesting that the writer of the hook (often upon which an entire song is based) should receive nothing for this?
Creative works don’t have to be in the public domain to be used in other works. Both the original creator and the one who alters the work to create a new one can still get paid from the new work.

3. In the US, copyright law was rewritten in the 1970’s so that creators would not have to register with the government every time they made a work in order to be protected. This was a huge protective step for every day artists. A work is protected as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form whether it is registered or not. This is good for creators. What you are suggesting would strip away this right. That is bad for creators. In general, requiring governmental steps to get your work protected is bad. Many artists tend to distrust the government.

4. Just because a song has not been commercially exploited does not mean it has no value. Just because it has been created does not mean that “culture” should get to use it for free while the author of the work is still living and could turn his own ideas into something new with it. Creative people do not have to give away their rights simply because it is convenient for the masses. Yes collaboration and sharing adds to creativity and culture and these are great things. But that does not mean that those who choose not to participate should be forced to, as you are suggesting.

5. There is room in current copyright law to build upon the works of others. In the US, this happens when you register a new copyright with the copyright office. There is a big difference between allowing people to borrow from each others’ work in order to create new ones, and forcing people to register with the government (or governments?) in order to protect their work.

6. Writing, recording, and creating can be hard work that does not offer an immediate benefit to the creator. Copyright law protects the creators of this work and in spite of the changes going on in the internet, these rights still matter. If you want to give people more incentive to create, give them MORE means to make money, not less.

7. Artists usually don’t have a lot of money or property. Their creative works are often the only things they can count on. Asking artists to register their work with the government is not something I would ever count on. Sounds like a wide open door for further exploitation too…

We DON’T NEED MORE MUSIC! We need BETTER FILTERS TO REMOVE THE CRAP AND GET THE BEST MUSIC TO RECEPTIVE EARS. And that means setting up incensitives for new business ventures, and for that we will certainly need BETTER COPYRIGHT LAWS, not removal of it!

Believe me, if you’re not getting to the music you want to hear it’s because the “series of tubes” is CLOGGED, not because copyright terms are too long or that the copyright owners a withholding the best from your ears.

A copyright, a piece of music, is like a child for a composer, and you might be simply a compulsive MP3 music collector…

@Michael:
Culture does not equal government. Far from it. This is public as in public broadcasting, which is a space not beholden to commercial or governmental behest. This is that radical idea of ‘public good’ meaning ‘for the good of people’. Your analysis holds up only if it’s true that music is purely and simply property. Which it isn’t.

Not asking people to register with the government, any more than they have to deal with a government agency to administer rights under the current system. This is a far more efficient (and far less expensive) overhaul of the existing framework.

@imakemusicyoudont
I have to disagree here. The key to a better music industry environment is not to be found in restricting the amount of available music.

More music - like more literature, more painting, more dancing and more art and culture of all kinds - is desirable. Imposing commercial filtering systems as a cultural coping mechanism is totally misguided. It’s important to have your own personal filtering systems, of course - but blocking voices because they are less articulate is hardly the basis for free speech - another public good.

@Howlin’ Hobbit
I’d agree with 14 years as an arbitrary period under other circumstances, but copyright is SO broken at the moment, that anything longer than five runs the risk of locking people into a dysfunctional system way longer than is necessary.

Perhaps this is not the best audience to make this point to - but I stand by it: I will always prioritise the general cultural and social good over the wallets of musicians or anyone else, no matter how unfairly rewarded they have been in the past for their endeavours.

In all cases, as far as I’m concerned, culture trumps commerce. And enterprise based on a healthy public sphere trumps commercial lockdown.

However, what’s being overlooked here is the fact that the five year renewable copyright model works in favour of composers and creators in a commercial sense far more often than it might be inadvertently detrimental (if ever).

The current system prevents composers and copyright holders from making money - far more so than it enables.

Remember - the overwhelming majority of works currently under control of record labels is unavailable for purchase. This system incentivises the development of revenue streams that would bring that work back into the open, generate new income for the creators of that music - and substantially increase the size of the music economy by actually understanding and taking advantage of the Long Tail phenomenon.

Fear of ‘what might happen if I somehow don’t renew my copyrights’ is completely outweighed by the benefits of a system that mandates a positive commercial environment for all recorded music, and incentivises and enables the ongoing creation of new, monetisable works.

Still not seeing the downside here.

I knew it would make people angry if I post what I feel about that discussion. Some even stay anonymous in their comments.
The photographer has been paid. The cover art is mine. And the remark about the shopping cart is way below the level of discussion on this site.

I’m asking you, what makes you so angry about it? Is it the fact that we make a living as independent musicians, while the gurus are telling the starving artists to give away their work and sell t- shirts and baseball caps instead?

But I’m happy it stirs up some shit. Maybe we even get a little closer to truth.

I guess all artist that actually make money from their rights and can make a living from their work share my point of view.
I’m totally in favor of exchange and collaboration and the day my plumber will work for me without charging anything, just because he loves his work so much, will be the day I let go of my rights.

Cutting down rights will always be against the artist.

@Prepostra.
The photographer has been paid. The cover art is mine. And the remark about the shopping cart is way below the level of discussion on this site.

gavroche writes: What about the notion if after 5yrs your music becomes commercially viable, you are paid compulsory royalties for the use? Kinda like mechanicals…

The fact that there’s no compulsory licensing for sampling in the US is a huge problem. I can easily and cost-effectively secure a license to record and release a cover of any artist’s song, but such a thing doesn’t exist for sampling.

If we had such an option, we wouldn’t have to worry about length of copyright. Anyone could just pay the minimum license fee at any time and obtain the right to use the samples. Artists would get paid, but they wouldn’t be able to hoard their published works away from the public out of greed.

And it would increase the chances of that “maybe someday” scenario happening, since the artist would be incentivized to allow more of his work to be sampled, rather than holding out for some big paycheck that otherwise might never come.

“Only 2% ever been released up for sale yada yada” is an old fact. I remember hearing it at a seminar in Manchester 5 years ago, before the announcements from Apple about the quantity of tracks they have available. Think its important to keep the facts fresh really, 5 years from now people could be sprouting the same stats, pretty much invalidates the argument if they’re not careful. I would have expected a reference from you Andrew, being a senior lecturer and all, you wouldn’t let one of your students get away with that!

I think 5 years is well… insane. Perhaps it shouldn’t be 95 years as the industry is pushing towards either. I think what your saying here is if your not using it then give it back to the ‘culture’. I’m with you on one level, I download lots of live music and don’t feel bad about not paying for it, because I love live music and if it wasn’t commercially released, the label has nothing to stand on really. But a live recording is different to the copyright of the track and the composition. I think if people have made something and don’t want it to exploited it in any way, then it’s their choice, it’s up to them if they want to release it into the ‘culture’. Before anyone kicks off at this point, a label or publisher can’t decide this because of a clause written into contracts termed ‘restraint of trade’, this is up to the recording artist/composer to hold back a release.

I don’t think people really care about copyright term, people will just go out and make whatever they want, regardless of permission, it doesn’t stunt popularity either, take Dangermouse as an example with his grey album.

Artists, Songwriters, Labels & Publishers, have the right to have their works protected for a decent duration. It can take years before some tracks ‘take off’ and releasing them prior to this would be a disaster. Don’t even get me started on the chap who suggested the $1000 fee!

I should like to ask one question of those who feel they would be hurt by this proposition.

What rights that you currently enjoy would you lose?

Sorry to be a big of a smart ass, but to point out why re-registering a copyright or lose control of it is bad for creators…

let’s just take a trip down memory lane to about a month or two ago…. what exactly happened to newmusicstrategies.com?

Regardless of government involvement or some private entity, I can only imagine what it would be like to re-register various pieces of catalog that are created at different times with different co-writers and publishing companies, PRO’s, etc involved…

I do agree that “for the good of people” and culture is also a good thing. The problem I have is that eventually, music makes money for people whether it’s in the public domain or not. Radio stations, television, film, advertisers, are all examples of enterprises that use music to make money and under current copyright law, are required to pay to use it.

Copyright law exists to make sure that some of the people that make the money from these uses are the creators of the works. This is not just the people that license the work from the creators (the labels).

If works go out into the public domain after 5 years, whether by accident (which is likely) or ineptitude on the part of management, the people that exploit the works will simply be able to use works for free and thus increase their profits at the expense of creators…

Therefore, somebody really could lose under this proposal.

However I would love it if some form of law could be used to convince labels to let go of some of the material sitting on their shelves…I have many friends whose albums are still languishing in obscurity because of label “strategies”.

It would also be nice if it were easier to procure sampling licenses for the creation of new works. But these sorts of uses can be incorporated into existing law, (a compulsory license is a great idea) or for those artists who wish to support this type of use we have Creative Commons licesnes.

A few generalizations are very obvious from reading the heated discussion on this topic:

- Many people love to be right and are very attached to this
- People are unhealthily attached to things (tangible and intangible, music being one of them)
- People really hate change and are very attached to specific terminology and being politically correct
- People read New Music Strategies even though they don’t agree with Andrew’s fundamental ideas
- Of course no one is going to fund research that proves that less than 2% of all music that has ever been released in a commercial format is currently for sale, but any music lover knows it’s true without need for proof!
- Some things that Andrew suggests are hard to swallow for some coming from him because of the fact that he is not a music creator specifically
- I am a music creator, and spend hours and weeks laboring over my work, and artists spend significant amounts of money hiring me to work on it for them. But it’s very clear that with the way the world is changing, your still going to have to let your music be free if you want to be successful. There’s lots of examples of this being the case and working, so stop trying to debate it.

Peter Blue, can you name a song that fits what you describe?

More importantly, can you name a single song in which the original creator is soley responsible for putting that song in the ears of 1 million people. He wrote it, produced it, recorded it, mastered it, marketed it, distributed it, and at the end of the day 1 million people were enriched by his efforts.

Why does the creator deserve such special treatment? Where is the fair exchange? Without dozens or hundreds of people other people, from engineers to distributors, none of whom receive royalties, a work would not generate a million sales. Without limited copyright and fair use, what body of work would the artist learn from and draw upon?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t undervalue the artist. I am an artist. I value myself very much. But I also know that I am not alone in the artistic community. And I know that even if tomorrow I were to become the next John Lennon, I could not claim that I alone enriched the world. My team, and not myself alone, enriches the world, and I play a crucial but not god-like role in that process. My teachers enriched me for years. My life inspired me. My peers helped me grow. To suggest that my personal contribution is so massive, so great, so completely dwarfing that I should be supported for the rest of my life by skimming money from the continued work of others would require an ego of such planet-like dimensions that I would need my own personal solar orbit.

Andrew-
Yes, I think that limiting the life of sound recording copyrights is, in general is good idea. I’m not sure that 5 years is quite long enough to recoup, but I do think that some form of bundled copyright that allows the licensing of SR and Performance simultaneously is going to be essential in a future (or present) wherein most royalties for music are generated from licensing between creators and businesses.

And as far as your site hosting troubles, I was really just trying to make an illustrative point (in good humor, I hope) that the bureaucratic entanglements of registering ANYTHING online, while seemingly simple with technology, could still cause many enormous unintended headaches and loss of revenue for people who don’t remember to re-register their works or who might not do it correctly. I was just noticing an analogy with your situation, but writing late night after a long day of flying probably made me come across as a bit of a dolt.

I really do appreciate the debate though. I think that copyright law, like all law, needs to change and adapt to the conditions of the time. And we certainly have some serious changes going on.

I realize that the question of private good over public gain is the issue and ownership of copyright ownership is a very touchy one for artists and those who seek to protect them.

If the purpose of your proposed changes is to make sure that more music makes it out into the world for the purposes of sharing works, sampling and making more collage because people can hear more things, then that’s a good thing, although for the most part, it’s already happening. There is a lot of music out there, even if it’s only 2% of what’s made and sometimes the only way to discover it is incentivizing labels to promote that music…

On the other hand, making sure that people have incentive to invest in the creation and recording of new music seems more likely to persuade creators to spend money / time creating and releasing works

The amount of cash investment needed to recoup the expense of recording usually very large (particularly for any music that is not electronic in origin) even today. The decade old myth that “recording costs have dropped to practically zero” is simply untrue. Again, 5 years is barely enough time to get a release off the ground and make your money back. 10 years, maybe. 20 seems more likely. And just because an artist or label hasn’t been actively working a release, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t benefit from all the labor that went into it.

Having run a label myself and thinking about starting again, I’d be unlikely to spend much money making a record if I thought that I was only going to be able to benefit from that labor for 5 years. I’ve already got plenty of reasons to avoid taking that kind of risk.

Anthony- your point is well taken and thanks for the correction. I think that might be the real issue. If label deals could work as licensing agreements instead of outright ownership of copyright, and as such would have to bring value to the compositions or else they lose their rights, is a great idea.

Copyright law seems a lot like traffic signals and stop signs. It may seem like a huge inconvenience when you’re on a mad dash to get somewhere seemingly important, but they actually protect a lot of people whom you can’t see. And sometimes we need to adjust the timing of the lights, but that doesn’t mean we should get rid of them just because we’re in a hurry to shorten our commute to the new housing developments growing on the outskirts of town.

Lil’ too much heat in this kitchen for me-I’m busy working on my project-just in the middle of a render…

The real issue here is the same one it always is-’where is the money coming from…?’

Does anyone have any good ideas about what would be the IDEAL rights for copying (I said it that way on purpose) someone’s art in the digital realm? That’s what I’m interested in at this point.

I find when ever I have this conversation, I go out of my way to make it personally apply to the person I’m talking to and I find I almost always get the same response-most people are for free at/product as long as it doesn’t come out of their pocket. The concept of a copyright is based on control (initially of Player Piano Reels as I understand) of a material item. We all know that digital doesn’t work that way, so what *should* be the approach?

At the risk of offending some, the leaders in online tech is really the Adult Film Industry. They are having the same problem we are in terms of what happens to content. They seem to have gone we a very different approach which I find interesting-though I do know that some are taking the old method. One particular site actually has all it’s content up and takes a point based ‘on demand’ approach. If you buy at a flat rate, you get a certain number of points and you can use that to purchase content. The more popular content, the more it cost in points. It seems to be an interesting and potentially viable way to sell product…

Sorry for the tangent-I just don’t see the old methods as really applying anymore. Where the do, I think an artist is smart to follow them, if not-try something new…

J

Yes Andrew, I’d prefer your new copyright term to refer to the recording not to the actual composition. (and I’d prefer a longer period for the recording too)

Is there a way of working in some protections for ethno-music/artists
against having ’sacred’ music being exploited out of context?

I’d like to allow the copyright owner to keep the copyright as long as the work is economically viable. But only the copyright owner knows when the end of economic viability has been reached. The best way I see to do this is to require a moderate annual (paid in whatever form is convenient) fee of around $100. This fee would start when the work is first published. When you stop paying the fee the work goes into the public domain.

This fee solves many problems. You always know who the copyright owner is, it’s the person paying the fee. It solves the problem of music from the 1920-40’s where no one knows who really owns it. No one would pay the fee and it would go to the public domain. It also solves the problem of recording labels sitting on 2M tracks and keeping them off the market. They’d have to pay $200M. That will quickly force them to sort out the profitable tracks and to release the rest to the public domain. I’m sure the fee would be paid on the Beatles for the next 1000 years.

Sorry, Karen - but you say this as if Muslim prayers are currently under some sort of protected status thanks to existing copyright laws, and that this would be somehow threatened by a change of term - which is not only wrong, but it confuses this issue beyond recognition.

I think your point about there being some pieces of audio that would offend certain people’s sensibilities if they were repurposed is a fair one, but I don’t see what it has to do with this discussion.

For the record, though, I would note the following:

1) I would personally be inclined to respect any traditional musics held to be sacred;

2) While there are musics that are held to be sacred, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are sacred;

3) Offending traditional sensibilities gave us jazz, funk, rock&roll and punk. And the civil rights movement. And universal suffrage.

Rather than get into a debate about ethics and respect, though, shall we return to our discussion of copyright?

Hi Andrew, thanks for your response - I realise that my comment could be read as if I was suggesting that sacred/traditional musics

“are currently under some sort of protected status thanks to existing copyright laws, and that this would be somehow threatened by a change of term”

but I am not saying that at all.

I agree that copyright is broken. My comment is a (OK - clumsy) attempt to dialogue about what ‘music’ is/isn’t subject to any kind of copyright. And about ownership of ideas and yes … traditional culture (and all the creative ideas therein).

I’m not sure however that separating ‘ethics and respect’ ( good choice of words, thanks) from the copyright debate will fix it. I suspect the opposite is true as uncomfortable as it may sound. I suspect that what ever changes in legislature are made, they will all invariably empower the same kind of people in the end, unless we start including concepts of ‘ethics and respect’.

Anyway I just ducked out to a film about Albert Ayler, now there’s your case in point about stepping on musical traditions.

So ………….. How can we have one law for “pop” music/culture and another for “traditional/sacred” music/culture? We probably can’t. Do you think your idea (or anyone else’s for that matter) will offer enough protection for traditional/sacred music and texts, from users who don’t share your high personal ethics?

k

I think you’ve made a very silly proposal.

For starters, this would be ridiculously difficult to maintain. Just consider the sheer size of such an effort– communicating with the government every time you released a song? What if your song was leaked before the release date? Think of how many individual works would have to be tracked! This would be monstrously large, and could only conceivably function if there was an absolute minimum of paperwork involved… and if this was the case, it would probably be rather useless.

I can envision the bigger companies bulk-mailing their copyright renewals, tens of thousands of forms at a time– who’s going to check if they’re lying about some obscure artist’s track? What’s the penalty if they do, and how would anybody know?

In order to implement your plan, you’d have to assume some sort of regulatory process or staff existed for catching/verifying the actual use of the tracks in question, which just puts the government further in the position of being up the ass of artists.

Then you’ve gone further, and suggested artists (or presumably, their labels) pay to renew the copyright. On one hand, you’re using this argument that we have some sort of inalienable right to have our work protected, but then you’re qualifying that with “well, if you’ve got $100″…. sounds to me like a stupid economic barrier that will only benefit those already doing well.

This is a muddled idea all around, and you’d do best to dump it.

Fair enough, you didn’t say “government”… but at this point in time, how many ordinary folks would be aware that the RIAA, etc ISN’T a government agency?

Also, you can’t exactly argue that they’re doing a bang-up job now, and you’d have to admit that this would be a LOT more work for them (or any similar agency).

Implementing your idea is on a similar order of magnitude to doing away with mailmen, and just having big pipes that shoot packages directly to everyone’s door– it sounds nice, and theoretically might work, but the actual practice would be absurdly overwrought and unwieldy– most likely to the detriment of artists.

I have to commend you Andrew on being able to stir up such emotion from people to attain 50 or so comments, some actually worth taking in, others not so much.

But I would ask you to justify why this should be an ‘opt out’ system rather than an ‘opt in’? Perhaps I might see you at the next brum bloggers meet and I might bring it up with you.

Well done to others who have contributed to the comments, always interesting to hear peoples perceptions and theories about copyright.

All right, I’ll go at this from another angle. How could the system be gamed? From what you describe, all a company has to do to keep something viable for copyright renewal is to simply click some button– ostensibly on their honor, that the track in question is still “in use” in some way.

So all Big Label X has to do is offer every one of it’s millions of tracks as an mp3 somewhere– forever– and hire some kids in a cube farm to punch the renewal button.

That’s too business-centric for my tastes. I don’t see how it benefits anyone involved with creation/art to have some company selling a dead guy’s stuff for the next 200 years. If something isn’t worthwhile, how do you think commerce could keep it alive? If that was true, you’d be able to go buy fannypacks and pet rocks at every store. Under your system, labels would NEVER choose to let anything go, as there’s simply zero economic motivation to do so. It would be a choice between

1) make no more money on this

OR

2) probably make no more money on this

You say Label’s won’t opt in Andrew, but say for example the scheme was compulsory, what makes you think a label would ever not click and extend the individual copyright term?

I personally don’t know much about orphaned works. If you came across a label who was still active and had no intention of releasing back catalogue, it would surprise me and there could be a case brought against the label for restraint of trade on those grounds.

Your statement of…
Why should most music be inaccessible to most people just so that some music can earn money for a longer period?

refers that a said company are making money from the repertoire suggesting it is on sale and under your scheme, with the said company still making money from the repertoire, what makes you think this company would release the tracks therefore making the music accessible? Not trying to wind you up here Andrew I hope you understand, just debating some points with you. Your proposal may only work with a cap on how many years a copyright is allowed to be kept, which basically brings us back to ‘decreasing copyright term’.

@Jon Smirl

Jon, the last thing we need now is another dam society.
Where is the $100 going to go other than black box funding and paying handsome salaries to people who don’t deserve it.

I see how it is– if you’re poor, you can live in the public domain ghetto, on the hopes that patronage will be your way out.

And Jon, is that how you’d really feel about getting ripped off– “hey, I’ve got a customer!” I’m calling bulls**t.

@Anthony. I appreciate the debate.

First, restraint of trade only applies if the artist is not released from the contract, but the works are not being released. It literally means ‘not allowed to work’. If the artist is released from their contract, they almost never get to take the recording with them.

If a contract expires, or the artist parts way with the label, or the album is deleted - or virtually anything else other than ‘band remains famous and catalogue remains financially viable’ takes place, then you end up in a situation where there is inactive catalogue.

You might be familiar with the REM albums on the IRS label. REM moved to Warner for the Green album, but IRS kept selling their early records - and even making compilations, because they would have been stupid not to. But that’s not true of every artist who parts company with a label (or simply stops making music).

So - I would be delighted if the labels DID click and extend the copyright term. Because this would mean that the songs were available for sale. That authors could be tracked down for permission to use works. That the lid would be lifted on an enormous back catalogue of recorded music. Artists that had been resigned to obscurity and no income whatsoever from long-ago sessions could have their music commercially available.

But the thing that would stop labels from doing that is the cumulative cost of digitising the works, scanning the cover art, entering the metadata and registering each work for the first time. A small effort per recording, but a massive and fairly costly campaign for millions of tracks that are not currently in circulation.

This would introduce just a small amount of friction (though not a $100-a-track hurdle), which would be easily overcome by an independent with no budget - but which on a massive scale would provide a commercial incentive to make decisions to release “unsellable” music into the public domain, and weigh up which bits of under-used assets were worth the time and energy.

Which is a very good thing - and the main reason why this cannot be opt-in.

@Jon Smirl - more money to the government?

You might be right there, I hear they’re looking for money to invade Iraq, perhaps we should throw more money their way? I think not.

This is by far the most comments I have seen posted here…I believe this has touched many a nerve.

@Dubber

Andrew, I see your point now re restraint of trade. But a label without doubt under the court of law would lose a case if they didn’t have repertoire made available for sale in this digital age. It may have a meaning of ‘not allowed to work’ but not being able to make money from repertoire because there are no points of sale is also a restraint of trade because they aren’t allowed to monetise to something they have spent time creating. Would love to see a test case of this and would of course, be on the side of the artist.

Major record label contracts (Having seen some Warner brothers recording contracts) are actually very savvy to restraint of trade. If a major has a recording contract with an artist (reminder to people reading this, with a recording contract, the major would own the recording for the duration of copyright term) If they haven’t successfully released thorough sister companies or licensed to 3rd party companies in other territories within 3 years, they are released from contract in that specific territory ALONG with the recording to sell on as they so wish. Something that really took me back when I came across this, and fair play to the majors I say.

**”But the thing that would stop labels from doing that is the cumulative cost of digitising the works, scanning the cover art, entering the metadata and registering each work for the first time. A small effort per recording, but a massive and fairly costly campaign for millions of tracks that are not currently in circulation.”** A point I made in a previous comment above and totally agree.

REALLY IMPORTANT POINT BELOW HERE PEOPLE!

I don’t think companies are out there NOT trying to get works digitized, we know of labels and artist who don’t want their works digitized and only released on vinyl (vinyl fanatics). But companies who aren’t getting the catalogue digitized and sitting on recordings represent a small percentage of companies. It isn’t fair to introduce this new copyright scheme because a small amount of companies aren’t playing ball.

Let’s take that 98% figure, even though we may disagree on the actual figure, thats not important. Let’s take that 100% and split it up to what actually matters here:

1).Companies who own copyright and want the tracks available for sale
2) Companies who own copyright and DON’T want the tracks available for sale

It should be for the 2nd class of company who you are after. I guarantee, split 1 isn’t 2% and split 2 isn’t 98%.

Dave, the point is that the Google, etc business model is not dependent on copyright laws to protect them. Microsoft is. Microsoft survives because copying is not an issue when you are pre-installed on 100% of PCs.

Software uses different models to make money. Google/Yahoo/Facebook’s core assets are contained on their servers and are never made public. Since no one can get at them they can’t be copied. I