New IFPI Boss Vows to Extend Recording Copyrights 225
JamesD_UK writes "John Kennedy, President and COO of Universal Music is to succeed Jay Berman as Chairman of the IFPI, the worldwide equivalent to the RIAA. Andrew Orlowski of The Register has written an article covering John Kennedy's views on copyright infringement and the public domain. Although Kennedy's thoughts on the former are predictable, he has vowed to fight hard to extend European recording copyrights past the current fifty year term. An extension of the European term to match the US would be particularly damaging to the public domain and efforts such as the Internet Archive as well as increasing the control that the recording industry holds over performers. For those interested, I run a small blog of articles regarding copyright recordings."
What I don't understand is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, isn't the real cash cow in the new 'hit' stuff they're making with cookie cutters nowadays?
Is it actually worth their time and energy to be able to go back that far? I thought they'd go where the money is...
Perhaps I'm just misguided...
Re:Poor Picasso is rolling over in his grave! (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, sometimes people have varied tastes.
Not at all surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
"Artists" share at least equal blame (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop downloading their music, stop going to their concerts, and instead reward independent musicians for resisting the temptations of the RIAA etc.
Re:Poor Picasso is rolling over in his grave! (Score:5, Insightful)
The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.
The first step in beating these pricks is to get Congress's hands out of their pockets. Until that happens, people like this will be put in positions of power where he can continue to go after the little 12-y-o criminals.
-- james
Are musicians part of the music industry anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
God is he shortsighted... (Score:4, Insightful)
Labels (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not shedding a tear. People act as if labels are the only way to do things. Don't want to sign with Universal? Don't. Publish on your own. Don't use the labels. You still have a choice.
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe some director want's to use some old song in his '50s era gangster epic.
Hell, stuff like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Beatles, Buddy Holly, Hendrix... That'll always be profitable.
How much is Brockheimer (sp?) paying to use those Who songs as the theme for his umpteen billion CSI spinoffs?
The stuff that isn't well known or popular... Who knows? Society is weird, all of a sudden some obscure song from 1961 is the biggest dance craze of 2005.
Even if it's worth no more than a nickel, they don't want to take the chance of losing it.
It doesn't cost them anything to keep they copyrights for decades or centuries.
Perhaps if it did, things would change. They'd have to decide, song by song, which are worth holding onto. But, if holding copyrights are a financial burden to the holder, it'd bar regular folks from the same protection that rich folks or corporations have.
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:5, Insightful)
They even made some remixes of old Elvis songs and used the fact that they managed to top some charts to argument that "old" music could still be "fresh" and generate money. This (according to lobbyists) was an argument when lobbying European politicians to prolong the copyright.
Personally, I feel it's an argument for the opposite side...apparently cool music can be made when the public creativity is unleashed upon the "old" music as it falls into public domain...that's part of the reasoning *for* time-limited copyright.
No wonder the music industry is dying! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear people say again and again that they buy less music because music sucks today. (At least the crap pushed by the industry.) Now we have evidence to back that up.
Re:Not at all surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I have no problems with harmonising the world's copyright laws so they all last the same amount of time, however only new works created after that date should benefit from the extended duration.
The Empire Strikes Back (Score:5, Insightful)
Every one of these industry moguls wants to be the Emperor of the Universe. They hate the way things are now, think they have the answers, and they want the power and the money.
The great thing is, just like in Star Wars, *we're
letting them do it*.
Don't like it? Join the rebellion now. I made a vow not to buy any more big RIAA-approved CDs until the insanity stopped, and I haven't. Used and indie CDs? No problem. But it takes more than that (they just blame it on piracy). Write your government representatives (ussuming you live somewhere you have representation). Refuse to support the Empire. There's lots we can do.
Why, again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyrights hinder things from becoming 'common' in our culture, and life becomes bland. Imagine if noone knew the words to 'happy birthday' or common Christmas carols...
-db
Re:Poor Picasso is rolling over in his grave! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can look at a painting of a turd and say that it is a perfect rendition of a turd without liking pictures of turds. (I used turd way to much in that sentence:)
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read-up on all the Lessig arguments [the-future-of-ideas.com] and I think he's done a good job of understanding and explaining the mechanics of how overzealous copyright law can hinder the development of derivatives. But I have to disagree with his conclusions.
Lessig's arguments, in a nutshell, are that because of draconian copyright law, the culture we would expect to see developing around protected works is not developing.
Maybe he's right, but maybe who cares?
It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA and friends will primarily result in the next generation developing it's own non-derivative culture, and with it, a derivative culture based on it.
Here's one example: the fastest growing software culture right now is not the proprietary software culture where everything is fairly adequately protected, but the free software culture where sharing and derivations are king.
Or consider this: The BBC is investigating the possibility of opening their archives to the world, placing them on the Internet, and allowing anyone who cares to create their own derivative works. If this happens, is there any doube that the next geveration of American kids will enjoy a culture of Dr. Who remakes, and be scarcely familiar with the culture of Friends and (God forbid) it's remakes?
The culture will grow wherever the culture is allowed to grow.
There's plenty of music out there on the internet which the RIAA can't complain about you downloading because the artist has already authorized it. (I don't want to bias anyone, so I won't post links here, but I'll invite replies and follow-up to post their favorite sites.)
What would happen if the onling music sharing community were to declare January, 2005 as Free Music Only month and take a pledge to refuse to offer, download, or purchase any music which isn't Free To Share for 31 days. Would the RIAA notice if all priacy stopped? Would they modify their prices or policies to compensate for the sudden reduction in the behavior they are soo keen to stop?
Would the industry ever recover from the loss of customers to the Free Music culture.
I submit that we don't have to build our culture on top of the one created by the RIAA; that the culture we have created for ourselves is really quite good, and certaintly adequate for our needs.
I'd say let the RIAA keep their worn-out cookie-cutter tunes. Let the culture they created die by their own silly overly-protective rules.
Wouldn't that be ironic; the RIAA, faced with the prospect that their primary market just doesn't care anymore, pleading to reduce copyright terms just so that future genrations will bother to remember them at all?
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Insightful)
If copyrights are extended retroactively to copyrights which have already expired, then copyrights should probably extend retroactively to copyrights which expired at the time they were used from the public domain.
So soon Disney can be busted for all their profits drawn from infringing on the then-copyrighted intellectual property of the Grimm fairy tales.
Of course it will never happen... in this world, Mickey mouse is protected for longer than anyone alive, both his property and his image.
Policiticans & Activists - END THIS NOW - HERE (Score:5, Insightful)
However, since corporations seem to think that once something is created they should own it forever, make them subject to the same taxes everyone has to pay - if intellectual property is truly property, treat it as such.
In other words, we must all pay taxes if we own real property - it's called the property tax. If you own a vacant lot, you must pay tax every year on it, whether you use it or not.
I hate that. I think it's stupid. I think once you own a piece of real estate, you should own it forever. However, that is the way the world is.
Let's extend it. The MPAA, RIAA & company pretty much have Congress and the Supreme Court bought off one way or another. It's pretty clear we can't fight them directly. So, let's start a campaign to collect intellectual property tax. Force companies to register and maintain title to created works. Give them a twenty year window, from time of first publication, to own the IP free and clear of tax. After twenty years, charge 'em tax if they don't relinquish the copyright to the public domain.
It's drastic. It's yet another stupid tax. On the other hand, it's a potentially huge source of revenue and a way of bypassing the lobbyists and hacks who prevent enforcement of the LIMITED copyrights mentioned in the Constitution. Go to a politician and tell them that the campaign contributions they take in from the copyright holders can't match the goodwill generated by bringing home the pork money that this tax will bring in.
How much will a
Let's do it. Anyone want to work with me to make it happen? It'd be difficult - copyright is usually a Federal issue, but there must be a way to get something done at the state level. Send me email if you're interested.
I'm a conservative Republican. The idea of working to create a new type of tax is hateful to me. Unfortunately, I must conclude the idea of turn the right to think and create freely over to corporations is even more hateful.
-Steve Calabrese
Copyright industries seem unnaturally greedy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the public get in exchange for losing their rights to music published in 1953?
Crap... (Score:4, Insightful)
Will it ever lead to a day when we would finally have the MCXCIII compilation of Britney Spears FOREVER and on the case instead of showing a busty Britney, it just shows a mound of dust.
That's what Britney would be in say.. 70 years, the way they keep extending these God damned copyrights.
So what if they spent 10 billion dollars to market that bitch? Other industries (like drug firms/whatever) spent a lot to develop products too, they don't get protection as ridiculous as these (thankfully)
Of course, we can go on and on about boycotting them, but as long as Joe Average doesn't know (or care) about what is happening, it won't even make a dent on the RIAA.
So long "the land of the free", let's all migrate to Nigeria!
http://www.migrate-nigeria.com/ [migrate-nigeria.com]
Re:No wonder the music industry is dying! (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of the acts seem to be highly succesful, artistically relevant artists, although the majority of those are way past their prime (the Stones, Aerosmith, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac) and haven't made anything terribly important recently except new T-shirt designs based on their third Greatest Hits compilation (which might have one new song or a remix of an old song).
The minority of those acts are talentless label-driven/label-created "products" (Matchbox 20, Christina Aguilera, to some extent Justin Timberlake, Eminem & 50 Cent). Note that Britney Spears does not even appear on that list (I'm sure she's on the Top 100).
Some acts no longer exist (the Beatles), some are gaining revenue based on their fame or past work (Queen Latifah, Ice Cube). Some acts are succesful despite the labels (most notably Phish, the Dead, Jimmy Buffet).
It also appears that 2% of the most succesful artists are children of Ravi Shankar. [allmusic.com]
A lot of the artists on there are country acts, which you don't really hear about too much on filesharing discussions. And some of them you probably have never heard of (Eros Ramazotti, Trans Siberian Orchestra, Bill Gaither, Maná).
And out of all those 50, you can probably argue that only a handful (say, 8 or so), are artists who are really pursuing art and pushing boundaries as oppposed to touring based on past fame or ability.
But when you see that the top 10 artists netted (not tour-grossed) roughly $1bn, I'm not shedding any tears.
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Insightful)
This would allow copyright holders to keep hold of the profitable intellectual property (the beatles for example, until they become unprofitable) whilst forcing them to let everything else into the public domain.
Copyright should encourage people to create new work by protecting their work in the short term so they can profit from it. The copyright system at the moment has been skewered towards letting copyright holders profit indefinitely form a single work. This isn't good for soceity and not good for true artists.
Re:Copyright industries seem unnaturally greedy (Score:4, Insightful)
Though I guess in fairness it's not the market's fault persay--the market does what it's supposed to. But individual shareholders, mutual funds and corporations are driven by not just greed, but instant gratification at the expense of long-term growth.
an off-topic prediction of evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Many ad agencies, when making a commercial for TV, use music that has not been cleared. When the commercial is ready for production, they have someone record a 'similar' version with different chords or a melody that differs only slightly - enough that it is considered a separate work, and no license is required. Clearing copyright for movies is similar - a license for distribution in a movie is subject to contracts as long as your leg and the price is shooting ever higher.
I predict that the music industry will move to have the mood and 'feel' of a song copyrighted. Just think of the money to be made by copyrighting a genre or production style of music! If the music industry can copyright the 'feel' or production style of a song, they will have what they always wanted - absolute control over who makes and distributes music. Independent songwriters who write a song that has a similar style to the Beatles 'Blackbird' will have to clear the copyright on that 'style'. Bands will be prevented from writing or performing 'a song that sounds like Led Zepplin'.
Yes, it sounds far fetched, yes, it is fraught with loopholes, opinion, and subjectiveness.
But it would make them rich, and it would make them all-powerful.
Watch for it.
Its a negative sum game folks. (Score:4, Insightful)
When are people going to realize that the extending copyrights, enhancing patent coverage, or any other games being played by IP monopolists are done at the direct cost of reducing the rights of individual people. That's right, it means taking something that you had as a right and giving it to a corporation. At one time this was justified by the belief that it would provide incentive to create new products and services. As we are seeing more and more, the effect now is to stifle innovation and keep it under control of large corporations so that they may maintain ecomonic power.
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the Grimm brothers were collectors of the oral tradition; they did not originally write the faerie tales they published. (I guess Anon could sue Disney ;^)
Re:Not at all surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should the family / estate of the artist get protection above and beyond what the family / estate of the factory worker gets? If the artist wants her family / estate to have more money when she dies, then she should save money to pass on to them, just like everybody else has to.
A better solution would be to make copyrights uniform, and set them at a much lower level - say, 5 or 10 years. That way, an artist/corporation would actually have incentive to keep creating new artistic works, which is why people invented copyright in the first place.
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Me too. There was a guy on TV the other night saying that if they can't have guaranteed rights to an artists work for at least 70 years, then there will be no incentive for record companies to release new music. It looks to me like longer copyright terms are holding back new music more than anything, as the record company is able to keep milking their back catalogue forever. Personally I think 20 years would be enough. Time to move on folks, the seventies is long gone, and yet most of the music we hear on the radio today is from that era.
Re:It's All Leapfrog - and we're the suckers!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. That point seemed be partially understood by the Supreme Court in the Eldred case but for whatever reason, they thought of that portion of Sony Bono as bad law but not unconstitutional. I just don't get that--the Constitution says copyright are "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Retroactive copyright extensions unequivocally do nothing to promote creation so how that portion could have been ruled Constitutional floors me.
Great leapfrog analogy too.
Re:Extension? Why Not? (Score:1, Insightful)
1) Elvis dodn't make much money from his songs
2) The songwriter doesn't get paid for the first 50 years of a song being reproduced.
I suggest that neither is the case.
Therefore the songwriters got a pretty penny from the work and can still produce more work to make up for out-of-print works.
Now, that brings up the point about OOP works. They are not earning *anyone* money. So why the copyright? If OOP were counted PD, then where is the harm? The only harm I can see is that people would have to create better stuff than they used to, because they are competinng with the growing backcatalogue of increasing irrelevance to the changing tastes of the day.
Equitable?
If you think so, then ask for *copyright responsibilities* to be enacted.
Re:Poor Picasso is rolling over in his grave! (Score:2, Insightful)
What some of you don't seem to understand is that copyright was invented to protect the little guy, the creative people, not to protect big businesses. Sure, big businesses are abusing it now, and this attempt to extend copyright is wrong -- copyright is short-term for good reasons -- but the basic idea of copyright is a good thing.
Picasso was a cynical schlockmeister. He'd be laughing.Re:Copyright industries seem unnaturally greedy (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps that's why they setup a separate entity with a separate name to do all the evil stuff.
How many people here claim to hate the MPAA, but have no such dispute with New Line Cinema? Maybe they're playing the public more than you think.
Terroists have brought US down... (Score:2, Insightful)
The next election no longer has meaning, either side with choose will result in the death of democracy.
May it be King George or King John, the multi-national corporation will make the government their puppet, and its citizens their slave.
This may seem harsh, but bear with me.
Terrorists have won on September 11. They've blinded us to the evil that's poisoning our society. For two years we've been hell bent on killing the monsters, but have ignore the very evil lurking in our society.
The Bill of Rights is no longer the holy grail of democracy. But merely guarantee corporations "The Right to Profit".
But all I know, here, now, is that what I said here no longer matters. Because despite the many intellectual frequenting this site, none has the power to change the falling bomb on our nation.
Just like Japan, who can't stop the two atom bombs.
All we can hope is a catastrophe. A disaster so great that it shatters our poisoned society. And from its ashes, we may be able to build a true nation by the people, for the people, of the people.
Or else, we're doomed to become merely a page in history, forgotten by all in the ages to come.