Music copyright war looming

Norman86

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/08/15/1913246/Music-Copyright-War-Looming

"When copyright law was revised in the mid-1970s, musicians, like creators of other works of art, were granted 'termination rights,' which allow them to regain control of their work after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. Recordings from 1978 are the first to fall under the purview of the law, but in a matter of months, hits from 1979, like 'The Long Run' by the Eagles and 'Bad Girls' by Donna Summer, will be in the same situation. ... 'We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,' said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of record labels. As the record companies see it, the master recordings belong to them in perpetuity, rather than to the artists who wrote and recorded the songs, because, the labels argue, the records are 'works for hire,' compilations created not by independent performers but by musicians who are, in essence, their employees."

Bob-Dubery

It'd be interesting to see how this pans out. Say Billy Joel gets the rights to his big selling album, what does he do next? You can be sure that CBS or whoever are not going to put 1c into marketing and distributing an album that they don't have a stake in. So what does Joel do?

Having something is one thing, being able to do something with it is another.

My bet is that Joel, or whoever, will licence the work back to a label at a mutually acceptable fee. Which may drive costs up.

Averatu

X-rated Bob wrote It'd be interesting to see how this pans out. Say Billy Joel gets the rights to his big selling album, what does he do next? You can be sure that CBS or whoever are not going to put 1c into marketing and distributing an album that they don't have a stake in. So what does Joel do?

Having something is one thing, being able to do something with it is another.

My bet is that Joel, or whoever, will licence the work back to a label at a mutually acceptable fee. Which may drive costs up.

Why??
When the majors are trying to build a younger market to carry them for the next 30 years. They wont promote Billy Joel to the teens, they'll sang some new star spangled teen idol or the next Amy Whinehouse(sic) and repeat the process. The only difference is they'll have to actually be able to write songs, and not just rehash (or remix if you will) the company catalog. Us old folks know what we like even if its not art, not so easily swayed by the hype. I still buy Killing Joke's new albums, have not seen them in any media since forever.
Joel in turn would be able to do a live anniversary DVD of said big selling album, distributed thru Amazon and coin it on nostalgia.

Bob-Dubery

Averatu wrote
X-rated Bob wrote It'd be interesting to see how this pans out. Say Billy Joel gets the rights to his big selling album, what does he do next? You can be sure that CBS or whoever are not going to put 1c into marketing and distributing an album that they don't have a stake in. So what does Joel do?

Having something is one thing, being able to do something with it is another.

My bet is that Joel, or whoever, will licence the work back to a label at a mutually acceptable fee. Which may drive costs up.

Why??
When the majors are trying to build a younger market to carry them for the next 30 years. They wont promote Billy Joel to the teens, they'll sang some new star spangled teen idol or the next Amy Whinehouse(sic) and repeat the process. The only difference is they'll have to actually be able to write songs, and not just rehash (or remix if you will) the company catalog. Us old folks know what we like even if its not art, not so easily swayed by the hype. I still buy Killing Joke's new albums, have not seen them in any media since forever.
Joel in turn would be able to do a live anniversary DVD of said big selling album, distributed thru Amazon and coin it on nostalgia.

Maybe. The target audience may not be big on on-line buying, though the flip side of that is that they've got it into their heads that you pay for music. The album may be available on-line right now.

There are options, you are right. My point is that an artist is unlikely at this stage of the game to want to manufacture and market the goods, so she or he will just license the album to somebody else to distribute and administer. The latter is important because the artist now just gets the RECORDING but that doesn't mean that they have an entitlement to all income from the sales of that that recording. Hmmm.... and do they own the cover art?

So I agree that there are options (Starbucks is one), but it seems to me that the artist is most likely to just license the work to somebody else to manage, or even sell it for a lump sum.

And see the original article - there's still some legal definitions to be thrashed out here. A test case looms, and the outcome will be interesting.