Comments on: Release The Music, 13 Nov 06 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:56:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Danny O’Brien’s Oblomovka » Blog Archive » celebrating org’s second birthday http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-164241 Danny O’Brien’s Oblomovka » Blog Archive » celebrating org’s second birthday Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:39:36 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-164241 [...] celebrity-studded publicity campaign that sought to extend copyright terms. It fought the hype with with clear facts and economics, and won - the first time that has happened [...] [...] celebrity-studded publicity campaign that sought to extend copyright terms. It fought the hype with with clear facts and economics, and won - the first time that has happened [...]

]]> By: On Performer’s Rights, Kathleen Ferrier, Bruno Walter and Mahler’s Rückert Lieder | Technology Law Culture (Netherlands!) - Olivier Oosterbaan http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-15102 On Performer’s Rights, Kathleen Ferrier, Bruno Walter and Mahler’s Rückert Lieder | Technology Law Culture (Netherlands!) - Olivier Oosterbaan Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:18:48 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-15102 [...] The duration of 50 years for neighboring rights is not uncontroversial, and some debate is taking place, most vocally in the United Kingdom, on whether the term should be extended to 70 years. See from the interest group Open Rights more on that here. [...] [...] The duration of 50 years for neighboring rights is not uncontroversial, and some debate is taking place, most vocally in the United Kingdom, on whether the term should be extended to 70 years. See from the interest group Open Rights more on that here. [...]

]]> By: Money Matter ! » this is so depressing http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-9251 Money Matter ! » this is so depressing Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:15:45 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-9251 [...] (Meanwhile, don’t miss Jonathan Zittrain’s presentation at the Open Rights Group “Release the Music” event on November 13. Details here and here.) [...] [...] (Meanwhile, don’t miss Jonathan Zittrain’s presentation at the Open Rights Group “Release the Music” event on November 13. Details here and here.) [...]

]]> By: Suw http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-7441 Suw Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:56:17 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-7441 Simon, yes, I would rather see a reduction too, but right now I think the more winnable fight is to keep term the same. As far as I know, reduction is not on the cards, but I could be surprised by Gower's recommendations as I've not seen the report. Simon, yes, I would rather see a reduction too, but right now I think the more winnable fight is to keep term the same. As far as I know, reduction is not on the cards, but I could be surprised by Gower’s recommendations as I’ve not seen the report.

]]> By: Simon Gibbs http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-7315 Simon Gibbs Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:30:00 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-7315 I'm somewhat persuaded by other calls to *reduce* the term, certainly the automatic term. Do we know if term reductions are under consideration? I’m somewhat persuaded by other calls to *reduce* the term, certainly the automatic term.

Do we know if term reductions are under consideration?

]]> By: Stephen Sutton http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-6927 Stephen Sutton Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:32:04 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-6927 As a music industry professional (owner of an independent label) but also one who is committed to the preservation of our musical heritage, I am completely opposed to any extension in the copyright period for sound recordings. The only benefit would be to the large multinational labels who are doing nothing for musical culture in the wide sense, in rspect of continuing re-releases of the most popular recordings. The vast majority of recordings of classical, light, ehtnic, nostalgia, ballad, folk, and all "old-fashioned foms of popular music, having lost public domain status, would quite simply disappear completly. The sort of repertoire which we wish to use (our vintage recordings archive is just getting under way)is not financially viable to issue on CD or even digitally, given the hours of retoration work required. In effect, 90% or more of all recordings of over 50 years old would overnight be locked away out of sight and hearing, pretty well for ever.If companies like ours, and such labels as Nimbus, Pristine Audio, etc, are not able to continue, the arts in general, and the public, will be the losers, in order to line the pockets of a few already wealthy individuals, and I regard any extension as firmly against the public interest. I take that view both as a label owner and as a lawyer of 30 years experience. Two possible ways around the issue may be ; 1. Create a blanket registration scheme for all recordings over 50 years old on the same basis as teh curent MCPS/PPL CatCo system with a small flat rate royalty. 2. Create a "notice of intended release" system (more difficult to operate) whereby any peson wishing to release "copyright" recordings of more than 50 years old gives notice to a central office. The copyright owner has one month to object (and must justify the objection by proving that it itself will release the same material within the next 12 months)with penalties for copyright owners who wrongly object. I add two finakl comments: 1. A recent study by the Smithsonian concluded that the extended copyright periods in the uSA have produced exactly the result I foresee, with only a tiny proportion of vintage recordings now available to the public 2. In relation to the rarer material we intend to deal in, the copyight owner will in many cases be (a) no longer in existence (b) untraceable (c) unable to verify ownership. Many companies destroyed their old recording ledgers. S. Sutton As a music industry professional (owner of an independent label) but also one who is committed to the preservation of our musical heritage, I am completely opposed to any extension in the copyright period for sound recordings. The only benefit would be to the large multinational labels who are doing nothing for musical culture in the wide sense, in rspect of continuing re-releases of the most popular recordings.

The vast majority of recordings of classical, light, ehtnic, nostalgia, ballad, folk, and all “old-fashioned foms of popular music, having lost public domain status, would quite simply disappear completly. The sort of repertoire which we wish to use (our vintage recordings archive is just getting under way)is not financially viable to issue on CD or even digitally, given the hours of retoration work required. In effect, 90% or more of all recordings of over 50 years old would overnight be locked away out of sight and hearing, pretty well for ever.If companies like ours, and such labels as Nimbus, Pristine Audio, etc, are not able to continue, the arts in general, and the public, will be the losers, in order to line the pockets of a few already wealthy individuals, and I regard any extension as firmly against the public interest. I take that view both as a label owner and as a lawyer of 30 years experience.

Two possible ways around the issue may be ;

1. Create a blanket registration scheme for all recordings over 50 years old on the same basis as teh curent MCPS/PPL CatCo system with a small flat rate royalty.

2. Create a “notice of intended release” system (more difficult to operate) whereby any peson wishing to release “copyright” recordings of more than 50 years old gives notice to a central office. The copyright owner has one month to object (and must justify the objection by proving that it itself will release the same material within the next 12 months)with penalties for copyright owners who wrongly object.

I add two finakl comments:

1. A recent study by the Smithsonian concluded that the extended copyright periods in the uSA have produced exactly the result I foresee, with only a tiny proportion of vintage recordings now available to the public

2. In relation to the rarer material we intend to deal in, the copyight owner will in many cases be (a) no longer in existence (b) untraceable (c) unable to verify ownership. Many companies destroyed their old recording ledgers.

S. Sutton

]]> By: Information Politics | Blog | Release the Music Event - Nov 13 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-6864 Information Politics | Blog | Release the Music Event - Nov 13 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:23:34 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-6864 [...] The issue of whether the U.K. should extend the current 50-year copyright duration for sound recordings will be discussed by Oxford Professor Jonathan Zittrain and others on November 13th in London. Details here. [...] [...] The issue of whether the U.K. should extend the current 50-year copyright duration for sound recordings will be discussed by Oxford Professor Jonathan Zittrain and others on November 13th in London. Details here. [...]

]]> By: Creative Commons Nederland http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-6441 Creative Commons Nederland Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:28:29 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/10/26/release-the-music-13-nov-06/#comment-6441 [...] Zoals te verwachten lobbyen kunstenaars en platenmaatschapijen inmiddels intensief voor een verlenging van de beschermingsduur van de naburig rechten. deze discussie speelt op dit moment met name in het Verenigt Koninkrijk. de Britse actiegroep ‘The Open Rights Group‘ organiseerd daarom op 13 November in london een evenement met de tittle ‘Should the term of copyright protection on sound recordings stay at 50 years or be extended?‘: This question has been hanging in the air for the last couple of years, with the music industry lobbying government for an extension on the grounds that the royalties they earn from old recordings are essential to bringing new acts to the stage and supporting ageing musicians. They believe that copyright term on sound recordings should be the same length as the copyright in the composition, which currently stands at life plus 70 years. [...] [...] Zoals te verwachten lobbyen kunstenaars en platenmaatschapijen inmiddels intensief voor een verlenging van de beschermingsduur van de naburig rechten. deze discussie speelt op dit moment met name in het Verenigt Koninkrijk. de Britse actiegroep ‘The Open Rights Group‘ organiseerd daarom op 13 November in london een evenement met de tittle ‘Should the term of copyright protection on sound recordings stay at 50 years or be extended?‘: This question has been hanging in the air for the last couple of years, with the music industry lobbying government for an extension on the grounds that the royalties they earn from old recordings are essential to bringing new acts to the stage and supporting ageing musicians. They believe that copyright term on sound recordings should be the same length as the copyright in the composition, which currently stands at life plus 70 years. [...]

]]>