Apple's Beats, Google, and Sony hammered with unpaid royalty claim New Apple toy Beats Electronics, along with Sony and Google, are among the targets of a lawsuit over claims of unpaid royalties. A New York publisher is suing the companies for failing to pay it royalties on songs published before 1972, the year US copyright law was updated to cover sound recordings. Zenbu Magazines claims …
While you're correct, there probably should be some compensation permitted I would think. The industry fights piracy (laughs quietly) but also encourages it by not compensating artists. The end result will probably be that the distributors such as Beats, Google, Sony, et al will just not offer the music on their playlists. Anything pre-1972 probably hasn't that large an audience to make it worth their while to fight for. Pity... there's going to be a lot of great music that will be unheard.
I'm entirely in favour of copyright, but why should anybody get compensated for something they created 43 freaking years ago? Especially if it isn't their own work, but merely something they bought.
IMO copyright should be like a patent: it should have a lifetime of, say, 25 years or until the creator's death, whichever is longest, and should be non-renewable. I fail utterly to see why anybody or company should continue to benefit from somebody else's work after that.
"I fail utterly to see why anybody or company should continue to benefit from somebody else's work after that."
What is particularly galling is that some of these big media companies who push for ever extending copyright, made a lot of cash by plundering the public domain for its stories without having to pay a penny. Songs and stories become part of our cultural heritage. Excessive copyright periods deprive us all.
If it crawls like a mouse, and squeaks like a mouse...
"If it crawls like a mouse, and squeaks like a mouse..."
That mouse needs to be put down, it's rabid.
It has dug it's claws into everything it can find and has corrupted it. And like already mentioned, it has stolen so much to only lock up what it has stolen. If the original creator was around to see his mouse now, I think he would jump right back in the freezer. It's sad how people just assume this mouse is a friendly pet for children, when it's so clearly a wolf under those big ears.
P.S. The "South Park" representation of this mouse is dead on. I wish all children could see this representation 1 time before they become adults (whatever "adults" are :-).
"If you listen to it, there's your explanation why someone should be compensated for it, 43 years later."
Then someone owes SERIOUS money to some Sumerian family from 3,400 years ago. If they can get the RIAA to pay them, they'd be around $102.43 (Canadian) richer.
http://www.openculture.com/2014/07/the-oldest-song-in-the-world.html
Pity... there's going to be a lot of great music that will be unheard.
Anon, I.... I want to introduce you to filesharing services....
If you listen to it, there's your explanation why someone should be compensated for it, 43 years later.
Come again? No, actually no. Fuck off.
*Federal* copyright law does not cover sound recordings pre-1972. However, those sound recordings are still subject to *state* copyright laws, which vary hugely (part of the reason sound recordings were brought under federal law). Some of those state copyrights are actually more stringent than the current federal ones.
Not quite. As I mentioned below recording copyrights were recognized in state law.
But why in heck would California, say, keep open an office to administer the now superseded law on pre-1972 recordings?
Besides — and I strongly support this concept — the cost of enforcing copyrights should be borne by the one who benefits from the monopoly, the rights owner.
So the suits are in state courts under state law and easy to decide. However, the back payments are piecemeal and jurisdictional, and even though the streamers will always lose, there are very few rights holders who have the resources to bring a case in one state, let alone fifty, so the streamers probably do better just writing a check to the occasional litigant.
Most of the music I listen to is from the 1960's and early 1970's. IMHO, most produced since 1985 is pure shite/[c]RAP.
but I don't stream it. Why should I pay for something that I already have on Vinyl or Tape or CD? But that is another issue.
Here in Blighty, we have a slightly longer Music Copyright period. 70 years to be precise.
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
That probably means that this kind of lawsuit wouldn't fly over here.
Yes they pay. The sums for the performer gets are normally pretty small but the songwriter gets a lot more.
There was quite a stink when the early recordings by the likes of Cliff Richard (from the 1950's) were about to come out of copyright. In the end, the law was changed to extend the period from 50 to 70 years.
Like Disney and a certain rodent we may see pressure to extend it again in 15 years or so but quite how much revenue they'd lose then is IMHO miniscule.
Sadly a lot of the music played then was far more original than anything you hear today.
My grandkids are starting to appreciate some of this older music. I noticed that one of them was listening to King Crimson and Hawkwind over Christmas. There is hope yet.
Or maybe I'm turning into '21st Century Schitzoid Man'?
This post has been deleted by its author
I was trying to sort out the law on this, and while I may not have it right, I think I have a clearer sense of what went. In 1976, there was a major rewrite to US copyright law to bring it into conformity with the Berne Convention. Recordings, which were not protedpcted by federal law, became protected by the Feds and Congress made it somewhat retroactive, i.e., recordings after 1972. Recordings prior remained protected as per state laws, meaning there could be fifty variations.
New York, Illinois, California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Florida — I would guess — had strong laws, otherwise they'd not be recording centers they were. Probably all fifty states had very similar laws.
But, here's the point, any suits to reclaim past royalties have to be on a state by state basis, and recording owner by recording owner. Also, post 1972 recordings are streamed via negotiated license with the recording's owner. So a company that's active and with current hits has the leverage to get payment on oldies. Still, it seems to me someone should organize a consortium to represent small record owners and negotiate with the streamers to resolve the question. Regretfully I would expect such a consortium to not be satisfied with the streamers' "last" offer and on to litigation everyone goes.
Or the streamers stop playing oldies: leave that niche to the radio stations. No play, no dollars. Everyone, um, happy?
I do not get this. The only music that needs streaming tech is most of the music produced since ~2000, lots of music from the 90's as well. For most of the rest, copies are in order ... so, stop streaming that stuff ... just sell it.
I think 20 years is more than enough time for royalties, if you ask me. There are a lot of traditional publishing houses that sell songs without paying the artists ... really many, don't believe me, ask Edwyn Collins (A Girl Like You). All those compilations, best of the 90's, for example, never pay a cent in royalties to the artists, song writers ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
