RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

I'll second that.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: hellomahog...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:13:53 -0800
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  I think that the same people that run Fox tv came from the same school of 
folks that were in the music business. 

Short term thinking is what is the biggest problem with American businesses. 
(that's a paraphrase from a Japanese executive just before the 1980s stock 
market crash.)






On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:




























We were just talking about this subject tonight at my book club. Ray Charles is 
the classic example. He spent years at Atlantic trying to be Nat King Cole 
essentially. Ertegan and Wexler at Atlantic just let him do his thing because 
they new he had something. Then one day he calls them from New Orleans and says 
you need to come down here. They do and he takes them to a rehearsal and plays 
"I Gotta A Woman." The collective jaws hit the floor because they knew that he 
was on to something amazing and because they knew their faith in the process 
had worked. That kind of A&R actually went the way of the Dodo Bird in the 80's 
for the most part. I've worked with more than a few bands who were dropped when 
their first or second record failed to yeild the company expectations. 



What's sad and obvious is that return to this kind of approach would probably 
save
 the recording industry in the long run but there are too few who actually 
remember and appreciate it.

Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:



From: Mr. Worf 


Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:51 PM









 




  
  
  The music industry doesn't do A&R anymore. They stopped doing that in the 
1990s. Basically the job of an A&R rep is to develop an artist by having the 
artist do show cases, work on their performance etc. and musicality. So by the 
time the artist hits they are well prepared. They thought that it was an 
unnecessary expense. So it is doubtful that any new Princes will be invented by 
the music industry. They are too busy turn Princes into Kanyes or Beyonce. 




Another thing that was dropped in the R&B category is the group concept. The 
musical group no longer exists in that category. We may never see it again at 
this rate. (Unless it is an group from the alternative category crossing over.) 
I guess they figure that black folks are uninterested in people that play 
instruments? (the exception would be Keyes and John Legend) So no more Time, 
Zapp, or Parliament Funkadelics. 




Martin is right. They will use whatever works until it has been completely worn 
out. New faces same old sound. That varies slightly by region, but its mostly 
the same in this country from coast to coast. What happens in the US is 
repeated around the world. 





On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:






























Some distro's may be dead. Other's are thriving. I know of a couple that are 
doing really well because they have changed their business model to meet the 
demands of the changing market.

Warner's didn't invent Prince but they sure did pay to get him in the studio, 
grow over three or four albums and oversaw the marketing for his breakout 
record 1999. Left to his own devices it's unlikely that Prince would have 
happened in the way that he did. That's true of almost every major artist you 
can name. I'm not defending the majors but I am pointing out that their 
finances have played a major role in every huge artist you can name. With those 
funds dwindling and the marketing machine drying up, a new infrastructure is 
gonna have to replace the old or most of the great new music will mostly go 
unheard and more importantly unsold meaning more folks will have to
 work day jobs and keep their creative roles as hobbies. That's a terrible 
thing. I certainly don't see how that will make discovering new artists easier.

Bosco



--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Daryle Lockhart  wrote:




From: Daryle Lockhart 

Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com


Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 9:11 AM








 




  
  
  
This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a problem for 
the music industry.

This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but 
really, distribution' s been dead for 10

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

Can't answer for my nephew, as he lives in Paterson, NJ, and I only see him on 
some holidays. My niece gets stuff from all over the place. She attends a 
magnet school, where she has to carry a USB and a memory card at all times, and 
she often brings home music to download onto her computer.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: dar...@darylelockhart.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:04:47 -0500
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  
I would ask if your niece and nephew are listening to bands and DJ's or radio  
programming.

This has been a HORRIBLE year for radio music,  which  is one reason people 
went so  crazy when Jay-Z's album hit. It was actually sequenced with some 
thought.  But 2009 a GREAT  year for independent  music,  in multiple genres.
On Nov 15, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Martin Baxter wrote:  "This has been the 
best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great records that came out 
this year."

On that, Daryle, let us disagree. I do hear a lot of the new music 
(fifteen-year-old niece and an almost-nine-year-old nephew), and it all sounds 
the same to me. And I am a guitarist, so my ear's not exactly tin.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik





To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: dar...@darylelockhart.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:11:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries

This is actually more of a challenge to social 
media than it is a problem for the music industry.

This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but 
really, distribution's been dead for 10  years now. It's also probably the 
death of mega conglomerates.  So expect Universal, for example, to break out 
and re-brand its individual labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear 
about "this great new band on Mercury".
This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great 
records that came out this year. The difference is that  most of the great  
records that  came out this year were independents. And so social media played 
a big role in promoting new bands and singers, while Radio is still pushing 
"priorities". We have to remember that Warner Brothers didn't invent Prince. 
They signed him while he was young and on the rise. It will probably be EASIER 
to  discover "the next  Prince" without major labels getting in the way.
Right now, who's going to artist websites? 
I consider OkayPlayer.com, for example, to be one of my favorite "labels". I 
like all the associated artists, and so if an artist  comes out that's 
"OkayPlayer approved", I'll buy. Same with Sonar Kollektiv, Foreign Exchange, 
or Ninja Tune. I trust these sites/brands and am happy to use them as a 
starting point  for discovering new music. I NEVER go to Sony's website looking 
for new artists. 
Giving artists (and let's be real - managers and agents as well) control of 
their copyrights turns it all around, and gives people a reason to go to 
websites again. This is good because the artists/indie labels can make their 
money in two  ways - from the downloads and, once they've gained sufficient 
audience, concert tickets and advertising!  
In addition, artists can capitalize on this by building destination web radio 
stations or branded environments on iTunes. There are also mobile applications 
that  can be developed that a music industry of the 21st Century SHOULD have.
Most importantly, it stops artists from getting 10 cents out of a 99 cent 
download!
The challenge, then, is this - how does Facebook maintain its ridiculously  
high traffic when people rediscover that they can do other things on the web?! 


On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Bosco Bosco wrote: I would disagree. I 
think great albums continue to be made on a regular basis. We could take a trip 
down to Waterloo Records in Austin and I could pull literally thousands of full 
albums made in the last few years that were awesome. The quality issue is less 
about single vs album and more about the tidal wave of people recording music 
who simply shouldn't be doing it. We've got about the same number of great 
albums and singles coming every year but we've got an exponentially higher 
number of hacks watering down the pool with their drivel. That's been the issue 
since the start of digital revolution.

Assuming, however that you are correct and the major p

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

More truth in that!

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: ironpi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:58:57 -0800
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  We were just talking about this subject tonight at my book club. Ray 
Charles is the classic example. He spent years at Atlantic trying to be Nat 
King Cole essentially. Ertegan and Wexler at Atlantic just let him do his thing 
because they new he had something. Then one day he calls them from New Orleans 
and says you need to come down here. They do and he takes them to a rehearsal 
and plays "I Gotta A Woman." The collective jaws hit the floor because they 
knew that he was on to something amazing and because they knew their faith in 
the process had worked. That kind of A&R actually went the way of the Dodo Bird 
in the 80's for the most part. I've worked with more than a few bands who were 
dropped when their first or second record failed to yeild the company 
expectations. 

What's sad and obvious is that return to this kind of approach would probably 
save
 the recording industry in the long run but there are too few who actually 
remember and appreciate it.

Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:51 PM







 




  
  
  The music industry doesn't do A&R anymore. They stopped doing that in the 
1990s. Basically the job of an A&R rep is to develop an artist by having the 
artist do show cases, work on their performance etc. and musicality. So by the 
time the artist hits they are well prepared. They thought that it was an 
unnecessary expense. So it is doubtful that any new Princes will be invented by 
the music industry. They are too busy turn Princes into Kanyes or Beyonce. 


Another thing that was dropped in the R&B category is the group concept. The 
musical group no longer exists in that category. We may never see it again at 
this rate. (Unless it is an group from the alternative category crossing over.) 
I guess they figure that black folks are uninterested in people that play 
instruments? (the exception would be Keyes and John Legend) So no more Time, 
Zapp, or Parliament Funkadelics. 


Martin is right. They will use whatever works until it has been completely worn 
out. New faces same old sound. That varies slightly by region, but its mostly 
the same in this country from coast to coast. What happens in the US is 
repeated around the world. 



On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:


























Some distro's may be dead. Other's are thriving. I know of a couple that are 
doing really well because they have changed their business model to meet the 
demands of the changing market.

Warner's didn't invent Prince but they sure did pay to get him in the studio, 
grow over three or four albums and oversaw the marketing for his breakout 
record 1999. Left to his own devices it's unlikely that Prince would have 
happened in the way that he did. That's true of almost every major artist you 
can name. I'm not defending the majors but I am pointing out that their 
finances have played a major role in every huge artist you can name. With those 
funds dwindling and the marketing machine drying up, a new infrastructure is 
gonna have to replace the old or most of the great new music will mostly go 
unheard and more importantly unsold meaning more folks will have to
 work day jobs and keep their creative roles as hobbies. That's a terrible 
thing. I certainly don't see how that will make discovering new artists easier.

Bosco



--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Daryle Lockhart  wrote:


From: Daryle Lockhart 

Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 9:11 AM








 




  
  
  
This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a problem for 
the music industry.

This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but 
really, distribution' s been dead for 10  years now. It's also probably the 
death of mega conglomerates.  So expect Universal, for example, to break out 
and re-brand its individual labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear 
about "this great new band on Mercury".

This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great 
records that came out this year. The difference is that  most of the great  
records that  came 

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

Let me know when they say something new's up the pike. I'll buy.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: ironpi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:21:52 -0800
Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  Hey Martin

I worked in the music business professionally for over 15 years. I have gold 
and platinum album awards on my wall for many of the bands that I worked with. 
I know a boatload of people in the industry and I can tell you for certain most 
of them are on the lookout for something new and delightful.

Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Martin Baxter  wrote:

From: Martin Baxter 
Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: "SciFiNoir2" 
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 3:12 PM







 




  
  
  


Bosco, that's because it won't. The music industry doesn't want new artists, 
just New Faces and the Same Old Sound.
  

Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star.




 



 





  


 









  
_
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Mr. Worf]

I think that the same people that run Fox tv came from the same school of
folks that were in the music business.

Short term thinking is what is the biggest problem with American businesses.
(that's a paraphrase from a Japanese executive just before the 1980s stock
market crash.)



On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:

>
>
>  We were just talking about this subject tonight at my book club. Ray
> Charles is the classic example. He spent years at Atlantic trying to be Nat
> King Cole essentially. Ertegan and Wexler at Atlantic just let him do his
> thing because they new he had something. Then one day he calls them from New
> Orleans and says you need to come down here. They do and he takes them to a
> rehearsal and plays "I Gotta A Woman." The collective jaws hit the floor
> because they knew that he was on to something amazing and because they knew
> their faith in the process had worked. That kind of A&R actually went the
> way of the Dodo Bird in the 80's for the most part. I've worked with more
> than a few bands who were dropped when their first or second record failed
> to yeild the company expectations.
>
> What's sad and obvious is that return to this kind of approach would
> probably save the recording industry in the long run but there are too few
> who actually remember and appreciate it.
>
> Bosco
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf * wrote:
>
>
> From: Mr. Worf 
> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music,
> Publishing Industries
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:51 PM
>
>
>
> The music industry doesn't do A&R anymore. They stopped doing that in the
> 1990s. Basically the job of an A&R rep is to develop an artist by having the
> artist do show cases, work on their performance etc. and musicality. So by
> the time the artist hits they are well prepared. They thought that it was an
> unnecessary expense. So it is doubtful that any new Princes will be invented
> by the music industry. They are too busy turn Princes into Kanyes or
> Beyonce.
>
> Another thing that was dropped in the R&B category is the group concept.
> The musical group no longer exists in that category. We may never see it
> again at this rate. (Unless it is an group from the alternative category
> crossing over.) I guess they figure that black folks are uninterested in
> people that play instruments? (the exception would be Keyes and John Legend)
> So no more Time, Zapp, or Parliament Funkadelics.
>
> Martin is right. They will use whatever works until it has been completely
> worn out. New faces same old sound. That varies slightly by region, but its
> mostly the same in this country from coast to coast. What happens in the US
> is repeated around the world.
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bosco Bosco  com<http://mc/compose?to=ironpi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  Some distro's may be dead. Other's are thriving. I know of a couple that
>> are doing really well because they have changed their business model to meet
>> the demands of the changing market.
>>
>> Warner's didn't invent Prince but they sure did pay to get him in the
>> studio, grow over three or four albums and oversaw the marketing for his
>> breakout record 1999. Left to his own devices it's unlikely that Prince
>> would have happened in the way that he did. That's true of almost every
>> major artist you can name. I'm not defending the majors but I am pointing
>> out that their finances have played a major role in every huge artist you
>> can name. With those funds dwindling and the marketing machine drying up, a
>> new infrastructure is gonna have to replace the old or most of the great new
>> music will mostly go unheard and more importantly unsold meaning more folks
>> will have to work day jobs and keep their creative roles as hobbies. That's
>> a terrible thing. I certainly don't see how that will make discovering new
>> artists easier.
>>
>> Bosco
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 11/15/09, Daryle Lockhart > rt.com<http://mc/compose?to=dar...@darylelockhart.com>
>> >* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Daryle Lockhart > rt.com<http://mc/compose?to=dar...@darylelockhart.com>
>> >
>>
>> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music,
>> Publishing Industries
>> To: scifino...@yahoogro 
>> ups.com<http://mc/compose?to=scifino...@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 9:11 AM
>>
>>   This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it i

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Bosco Bosco]

We were just talking about this subject tonight at my book club. Ray Charles is 
the classic example. He spent years at Atlantic trying to be Nat King Cole 
essentially. Ertegan and Wexler at Atlantic just let him do his thing because 
they new he had something. Then one day he calls them from New Orleans and says 
you need to come down here. They do and he takes them to a rehearsal and plays 
"I Gotta A Woman." The collective jaws hit the floor because they knew that he 
was on to something amazing and because they knew their faith in the process 
had worked. That kind of A&R actually went the way of the Dodo Bird in the 80's 
for the most part. I've worked with more than a few bands who were dropped when 
their first or second record failed to yeild the company expectations. 

What's sad and obvious is that return to this kind of approach would probably 
save the recording industry in the long run but there are too few who actually 
remember and appreciate it.

Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:51 PM







 



  



  
  
  The music industry doesn't do A&R anymore. They stopped doing that in the 
1990s. Basically the job of an A&R rep is to develop an artist by having the 
artist do show cases, work on their performance etc. and musicality. So by the 
time the artist hits they are well prepared. They thought that it was an 
unnecessary expense. So it is doubtful that any new Princes will be invented by 
the music industry. They are too busy turn Princes into Kanyes or Beyonce. 


Another thing that was dropped in the R&B category is the group concept. The 
musical group no longer exists in that category. We may never see it again at 
this rate. (Unless it is an group from the alternative category crossing over.) 
I guess they figure that black folks are uninterested in people that play 
instruments? (the exception would be Keyes and John Legend) So no more Time, 
Zapp, or Parliament Funkadelics. 


Martin is right. They will use whatever works until it has been completely worn 
out. New faces same old sound. That varies slightly by region, but its mostly 
the same in this country from coast to coast. What happens in the US is 
repeated around the world. 


On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:


























Some distro's may be dead. Other's are thriving. I know of a couple that are 
doing really well because they have changed their business model to meet the 
demands of the changing market.

Warner's didn't invent Prince but they sure did pay to get him in the studio, 
grow over three or four albums and oversaw the marketing for his breakout 
record 1999. Left to his own devices it's unlikely that Prince would have 
happened in the way that he did. That's true of almost every major artist you 
can name. I'm not defending the majors but I am pointing out that their 
finances have played a major role in every huge artist you can name. With those 
funds dwindling and the marketing machine drying up, a new infrastructure is 
gonna have to replace the old or most of the great new music will mostly go 
unheard and more importantly unsold meaning more folks will have to
 work day jobs and keep their creative roles as hobbies. That's a terrible 
thing. I certainly don't see how that will make discovering new artists easier.

Bosco



--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Daryle Lockhart  wrote:


From: Daryle Lockhart 

Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 9:11 AM








 




  
  
  
This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a problem for 
the music industry.
This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but 
really, distribution' s been dead for 10  years now. It's also probably the 
death of mega conglomerates.  So expect Universal, for example, to break out 
and re-brand its individual labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear 
about "this great new band on Mercury".

This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great 
records that came out this year. The difference is that  most of the great  
records that  came out this year were independents. And so social media played 
a big role in promoting new bands and singers, while Radio is still pushing 
"priorities" . We have to remember that Warner Brothers didn't invent Prince. 
They signed him while he was young and on the rise. It will probably be
 EASIER to  discover "the next  Prince" without major labels getting in the way.
Right now, who's going to artist websites

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Daryle Lockhart]

I would ask if your niece and nephew are listening to bands and DJ's  
or radio  programming.


This has been a HORRIBLE year for radio music,  which  is one reason  
people went so  crazy when Jay-Z's album hit. It was actually  
sequenced with some thought.  But 2009 a GREAT  year for independent   
music,  in multiple genres.


On Nov 15, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Martin Baxter wrote:

"This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought  
12 great records that came out this year."


On that, Daryle, let us disagree. I do hear a lot of the new music  
(fifteen-year-old niece and an almost-nine-year-old nephew), and it  
all sounds the same to me. And I am a guitarist, so my ear's not  
exactly tin.


"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who  
in bloody hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik





To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: dar...@darylelockhart.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:11:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music,  
Publishing Industries



This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a  
problem for the music industry.


This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of  
distributors. but really, distribution's been dead for 10  years  
now. It's also probably the death of mega conglomerates.  So expect  
Universal, for example, to break out and re-brand its individual  
labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear about "this great  
new band on Mercury".


This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought  
12 great records that came out this year. The difference is that   
most of the great  records that  came out this year were  
independents. And so social media played a big role in promoting  
new bands and singers, while Radio is still pushing "priorities".  
We have to remember that Warner Brothers didn't invent Prince. They  
signed him while he was young and on the rise. It will probably be  
EASIER to  discover "the next  Prince" without major labels getting  
in the way.


Right now, who's going to artist websites?

I consider OkayPlayer.com, for example, to be one of my favorite  
"labels". I like all the associated artists, and so if an artist   
comes out that's "OkayPlayer approved", I'll buy. Same with Sonar  
Kollektiv, Foreign Exchange, or Ninja Tune. I trust these sites/ 
brands and am happy to use them as a starting point  for  
discovering new music. I NEVER go to Sony's website looking for new  
artists.


Giving artists (and let's be real - managers and agents as well)  
control of their copyrights turns it all around, and gives people a  
reason to go to websites again. This is good because the artists/ 
indie labels can make their money in two  ways - from the downloads  
and, once they've gained sufficient audience, concert tickets and  
advertising!


In addition, artists can capitalize on this by building destination  
web radio stations or branded environments on iTunes. There are  
also mobile applications that  can be developed that a music  
industry of the 21st Century SHOULD have.


Most importantly, it stops artists from getting 10 cents out of a  
99 cent download!


The challenge, then, is this - how does Facebook maintain its  
ridiculously  high traffic when people rediscover that they can do  
other things on the web?!




On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Bosco Bosco wrote:


I would disagree. I think great albums continue to be made on a  
regular basis. We could take a trip down to Waterloo Records in  
Austin and I could pull literally thousands of full albums made in  
the last few years that were awesome. The quality issue is less  
about single vs album and more about the tidal wave of people  
recording music who simply shouldn't be doing it. We've got about  
the same number of great albums and singles coming every year but  
we've got an exponentially higher number of hacks watering down the  
pool with their drivel. That's been the issue since the start of  
digital revolution.


Assuming, however that you are correct and the major players all  
bail to self released and self financed business models. What does  
that leave for the new guys? With the enormous pool of artists  
recording and releasing the songs, how do they get noticed without  
a well honed marketing machine to help create awareness? With the  
ease and virtual non cost of home recording and digital  
distribution the pool of people making music is going to continue  
to increase. The quality releases by unknowns and lesser knowns  
will simply disappear into the miasma of plain and pointless that's  
already drowning the industry.


The music industry is a bloated demon but without it, lots of  
things are going to be lost. I'm not sure mi

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

"This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great 
records that came out this year."

On that, Daryle, let us disagree. I do hear a lot of the new music 
(fifteen-year-old niece and an almost-nine-year-old nephew), and it all sounds 
the same to me. And I am a guitarist, so my ear's not exactly tin.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: dar...@darylelockhart.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:11:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  
This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a problem for 
the music industry.

This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but 
really, distribution's been dead for 10  years now. It's also probably the 
death of mega conglomerates.  So expect Universal, for example, to break out 
and re-brand its individual labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear 
about "this great new band on Mercury".
This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great 
records that came out this year. The difference is that  most of the great  
records that  came out this year were independents. And so social media played 
a big role in promoting new bands and singers, while Radio is still pushing 
"priorities". We have to remember that Warner Brothers didn't invent Prince. 
They signed him while he was young and on the rise. It will probably be EASIER 
to  discover "the next  Prince" without major labels getting in the way.
Right now, who's going to artist websites? 
I consider OkayPlayer.com, for example, to be one of my favorite "labels". I 
like all the associated artists, and so if an artist  comes out that's 
"OkayPlayer approved", I'll buy. Same with Sonar Kollektiv, Foreign Exchange, 
or Ninja Tune. I trust these sites/brands and am happy to use them as a 
starting point  for discovering new music. I NEVER go to Sony's website looking 
for new artists. 
Giving artists (and let's be real - managers and agents as well) control of 
their copyrights turns it all around, and gives people a reason to go to 
websites again. This is good because the artists/indie labels can make their 
money in two  ways - from the downloads and, once they've gained sufficient 
audience, concert tickets and advertising!  
In addition, artists can capitalize on this by building destination web radio 
stations or branded environments on iTunes. There are also mobile applications 
that  can be developed that a music industry of the 21st Century SHOULD have.
Most importantly, it stops artists from getting 10 cents out of a 99 cent 
download!
The challenge, then, is this - how does Facebook maintain its ridiculously  
high traffic when people rediscover that they can do other things on the web?! 


On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Bosco Bosco wrote: I would disagree. I 
think great albums continue to be made on a regular basis. We could take a trip 
down to Waterloo Records in Austin and I could pull literally thousands of full 
albums made in the last few years that were awesome. The quality issue is less 
about single vs album and more about the tidal wave of people recording music 
who simply shouldn't be doing it. We've got about the same number of great 
albums and singles coming every year but we've got an exponentially higher 
number of hacks watering down the pool with their drivel. That's been the issue 
since the start of digital revolution.

Assuming, however that you are correct and the major players all bail to self 
released and self financed business models. What does that leave for the new 
guys? With the enormous pool of artists recording and releasing the songs, how 
do they get noticed without a well honed marketing machine to help create 
awareness? With the ease and virtual non cost of home recording and digital 
distribution the pool of people making music is going to continue to increase. 
The quality releases by unknowns and lesser knowns will simply disappear into 
the miasma of plain and pointless that's already drowning the industry. 

The music industry is a bloated demon but without it, lots of things are going 
to be lost. I'm not sure missing the next Prince or Dylan or whoever is the 
intended goal but it seems a likely one to occur.

Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:31 AM

 If every major act out there starts doing like what 
the Eagle

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

Keith, that's because so many labels force young bands to put throwaway tracks 
on their albums, while marketing two of three actively because they have "The 
Sound". (I've seen several interviews with bands to substantiate this.)

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:23:35 +
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  
One thing iTunes helped do was make singles popular again. Lots of people only 
download select singles from iTunes, rather than whole albums.

- Original Message -
From: "Mr. Worf" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:31:03 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries








 



  



  
  
  If every major act out there starts doing like what the Eagles are 
planning, and what Prince, Nine inch nails, George Michael, Radiohead and 
others have done the business will be pretty much dead in a couple of years. 
Unless they learn how to adapt and work with a different business model. 


Back in the 1940s though early 1960s they worked on singles (45s) model but 
that went out the window when they started focusing on album sales. I think 
they need to go back to that. It is very rare that an artist will produce 
something that is so good for an entire album. 



On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:


























This will be an interesting time for the music business. Other copyright issues 
have already begun with acts like the Beatles and the Stones. The interesting 
part will be if artists, as in the aforementioned Nicholas Cage bankruptcy 
thread, become business saavy enough to run the business part of their music 
without the massive infastructure that has supported the business for so long. 
The fall out from this is gonna be really really interesting for years and 
years to come. The music business beast may finally be felled but the results 
may not be as pleasant as many would hope for. I'm watching with intense 
interest.


Bosco

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:


From: Mr. Worf
 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com

Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 5:28 PM







 




  
  
  This has the potential to really hurt the music industry. 

By Eliot Van Buskirk



November 13, 2009 | 

3:17 pm | 

   Categories: Intellectual Property,  Media



The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were
tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in
legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring
another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow
authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very
least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so.
At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music
publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented
contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable
copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, much of which still
sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless,
the wheels are already in motion.

“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big
problem for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of 
Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.


“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. 
“It’s just a matter of time.”

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist 
or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can 
take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during 
or after 1978 (Section 203),
they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper
paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording
copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so
on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.

The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices
by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,”
said Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get
back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Mr. Worf]

The music industry doesn't do A&R anymore. They stopped doing that in the
1990s. Basically the job of an A&R rep is to develop an artist by having the
artist do show cases, work on their performance etc. and musicality. So by
the time the artist hits they are well prepared. They thought that it was an
unnecessary expense. So it is doubtful that any new Princes will be invented
by the music industry. They are too busy turn Princes into Kanyes or
Beyonce.

Another thing that was dropped in the R&B category is the group concept. The
musical group no longer exists in that category. We may never see it again
at this rate. (Unless it is an group from the alternative category crossing
over.) I guess they figure that black folks are uninterested in people that
play instruments? (the exception would be Keyes and John Legend) So no more
Time, Zapp, or Parliament Funkadelics.

Martin is right. They will use whatever works until it has been completely
worn out. New faces same old sound. That varies slightly by region, but its
mostly the same in this country from coast to coast. What happens in the US
is repeated around the world.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:

>
>
> Some distro's may be dead. Other's are thriving. I know of a couple that
> are doing really well because they have changed their business model to meet
> the demands of the changing market.
>
> Warner's didn't invent Prince but they sure did pay to get him in the
> studio, grow over three or four albums and oversaw the marketing for his
> breakout record 1999. Left to his own devices it's unlikely that Prince
> would have happened in the way that he did. That's true of almost every
> major artist you can name. I'm not defending the majors but I am pointing
> out that their finances have played a major role in every huge artist you
> can name. With those funds dwindling and the marketing machine drying up, a
> new infrastructure is gonna have to replace the old or most of the great new
> music will mostly go unheard and more importantly unsold meaning more folks
> will have to work day jobs and keep their creative roles as hobbies. That's
> a terrible thing. I certainly don't see how that will make discovering new
> artists easier.
>
> Bosco
>
>
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/15/09, Daryle Lockhart * wrote:
>
>
> From: Daryle Lockhart 
>
> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music,
> Publishing Industries
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 9:11 AM
>
>
>
> This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a problem
> for the music industry.
>
> This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but
> really, distribution' s been dead for 10  years now. It's also probably the
> death of mega conglomerates.  So expect Universal, for example, to break out
> and re-brand its individual labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear
> about "this great new band on Mercury".
>
> This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great
> records that came out this year. The difference is that  most of the great
>  records that  came out this year were independents. And so social media
> played a big role in promoting new bands and singers, while Radio is still
> pushing "priorities" . We have to remember that Warner Brothers didn't
> invent Prince. They signed him while he was young and on the rise. It will
> probably be EASIER to  discover "the next  Prince" without major labels
> getting in the way.
>
> Right now, who's going to artist websites?
>
> I consider OkayPlayer.com, for example, to be one of my favorite "labels".
> I like all the associated artists, and so if an artist  comes out that's
> "OkayPlayer approved", I'll buy. Same with Sonar Kollektiv, Foreign
> Exchange, or Ninja Tune. I trust these sites/brands and am happy to use them
> as a starting point  for discovering new music. I NEVER go to Sony's website
> looking for new artists.
>
> Giving artists (and let's be real - managers and agents as well) control of
> their copyrights turns it all around, and gives people a reason to go to
> websites again. This is good because the artists/indie labels can make their
> money in two  ways - from the downloads and, once they've gained sufficient
> audience, concert tickets and advertising!
>
> In addition, artists can capitalize on this by building destination web
> radio stations or branded environments on iTunes. There are also mobile
> applications that  can be developed that a music industry of the 21st
> Century SHOULD have.
>
> Most importan

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

Bosco, that's because it won't. The music industry doesn't want new artists, 
just New Faces and the Same Old Sound.
  
_
Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:112009

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Bosco Bosco]

Some distro's may be dead. Other's are thriving. I know of a couple that are 
doing really well because they have changed their business model to meet the 
demands of the changing market.

Warner's didn't invent Prince but they sure did pay to get him in the studio, 
grow over three or four albums and oversaw the marketing for his breakout 
record 1999. Left to his own devices it's unlikely that Prince would have 
happened in the way that he did. That's true of almost every major artist you 
can name. I'm not defending the majors but I am pointing out that their 
finances have played a major role in every huge artist you can name. With those 
funds dwindling and the marketing machine drying up, a new infrastructure is 
gonna have to replace the old or most of the great new music will mostly go 
unheard and more importantly unsold meaning more folks will have to work day 
jobs and keep their creative roles as hobbies. That's a terrible thing. I 
certainly don't see how that will make discovering new artists easier.

Bosco



--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Daryle Lockhart  wrote:

From: Daryle Lockhart 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 9:11 AM







 



  



  
  
  
This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a problem for 
the music industry.
This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of distributors. but 
really, distribution' s been dead for 10  years now. It's also probably the 
death of mega conglomerates.  So expect Universal, for example, to break out 
and re-brand its individual labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear 
about "this great new band on Mercury".
This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12 great 
records that came out this year. The difference is that  most of the great  
records that  came out this year were independents. And so social media played 
a big role in promoting new bands and singers, while Radio is still pushing 
"priorities" . We have to remember that Warner Brothers didn't invent Prince. 
They signed him while he was young and on the rise. It will probably be EASIER 
to  discover "the next  Prince" without major labels getting in the way.
Right now, who's going to artist websites? 
I consider OkayPlayer.com, for example, to be one of my favorite "labels". I 
like all the associated artists, and so if an artist  comes out that's 
"OkayPlayer approved", I'll buy. Same with Sonar Kollektiv, Foreign Exchange, 
or Ninja Tune. I trust these sites/brands and am happy to use them as a 
starting point  for discovering new music. I NEVER go to Sony's website looking 
for new artists. 
Giving artists (and let's be real - managers and agents as well) control of 
their copyrights turns it all around, and gives people a reason to go to 
websites again. This is good because the artists/indie labels can make their 
money in two  ways - from the downloads and, once they've gained sufficient 
audience, concert tickets and advertising!  
In addition, artists can capitalize on this by building destination web radio 
stations or branded environments on iTunes. There are also mobile applications 
that  can be developed that a music industry of the 21st Century SHOULD have.
Most importantly, it stops artists from getting 10 cents out of a 99 cent 
download!
The challenge, then, is this - how does Facebook maintain its ridiculously  
high traffic when people rediscover that they can do other things on the web?! 


On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Bosco Bosco wrote:
     I would disagree. I think great albums continue to be made on a 
regular basis. We could take a trip down to Waterloo Records in Austin and I 
could pull literally thousands of full albums made in the last few years that 
were awesome. The quality issue is less about single vs album and more about 
the tidal wave of people recording music who simply shouldn't be doing it. 
We've got about the same number of great albums and singles coming every year 
but we've got an exponentially higher number of hacks watering down the pool 
with their drivel. That's been the issue since the start of digital revolution.

Assuming, however that you are correct and the major players all bail to self 
released and self financed business models. What does that leave for the new 
guys? With the enormous pool of artists recording and releasing the songs, how 
do they get noticed without a well honed marketing machine to help create 
awareness? With the ease and virtual non cost of home recording and digital 
distribution the pool of people making music is going to continue to increase. 
The quality releases by unknowns and lesser knowns will simply disappear into 
the miasma of plain and p

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Daryle Lockhart]

This is actually more of a challenge to social media than it is a  
problem for the music industry.


This isn't the death of record labels, it's the death of  
distributors. but really, distribution's been dead for 10  years now.  
It's also probably the death of mega conglomerates.  So expect  
Universal, for example, to break out and re-brand its individual  
labels, like they do in the UK. Expect to hear about "this great new  
band on Mercury".


This has been the best year for new music in a long time. I bought 12  
great records that came out this year. The difference is that  most  
of the great  records that  came out this year were independents. And  
so social media played a big role in promoting new bands and singers,  
while Radio is still pushing "priorities". We have to remember that  
Warner Brothers didn't invent Prince. They signed him while he was  
young and on the rise. It will probably be EASIER to  discover "the  
next  Prince" without major labels getting in the way.


Right now, who's going to artist websites?

I consider OkayPlayer.com, for example, to be one of my favorite  
"labels". I like all the associated artists, and so if an artist   
comes out that's "OkayPlayer approved", I'll buy. Same with Sonar  
Kollektiv, Foreign Exchange, or Ninja Tune. I trust these sites/ 
brands and am happy to use them as a starting point  for discovering  
new music. I NEVER go to Sony's website looking for new artists.


Giving artists (and let's be real - managers and agents as well)  
control of their copyrights turns it all around, and gives people a  
reason to go to websites again. This is good because the artists/ 
indie labels can make their money in two  ways - from the downloads  
and, once they've gained sufficient audience, concert tickets and  
advertising!


In addition, artists can capitalize on this by building destination  
web radio stations or branded environments on iTunes. There are also  
mobile applications that  can be developed that a music industry of  
the 21st Century SHOULD have.


Most importantly, it stops artists from getting 10 cents out of a 99  
cent download!


The challenge, then, is this - how does Facebook maintain its  
ridiculously  high traffic when people rediscover that they can do  
other things on the web?!




On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Bosco Bosco wrote:

I would disagree. I think great albums continue to be made on a  
regular basis. We could take a trip down to Waterloo Records in  
Austin and I could pull literally thousands of full albums made in  
the last few years that were awesome. The quality issue is less  
about single vs album and more about the tidal wave of people  
recording music who simply shouldn't be doing it. We've got about  
the same number of great albums and singles coming every year but  
we've got an exponentially higher number of hacks watering down the  
pool with their drivel. That's been the issue since the start of  
digital revolution.


Assuming, however that you are correct and the major players all  
bail to self released and self financed business models. What does  
that leave for the new guys? With the enormous pool of artists  
recording and releasing the songs, how do they get noticed without  
a well honed marketing machine to help create awareness? With the  
ease and virtual non cost of home recording and digital  
distribution the pool of people making music is going to continue  
to increase. The quality releases by unknowns and lesser knowns  
will simply disappear into the miasma of plain and pointless that's  
already drowning the industry.


The music industry is a bloated demon but without it, lots of  
things are going to be lost. I'm not sure missing the next Prince  
or Dylan or whoever is the intended goal but it seems a likely one  
to occur.


Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music,  
Publishing Industries

To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:31 AM


If every major act out there starts doing like what the Eagles are  
planning, and what Prince, Nine inch nails, George Michael,  
Radiohead and others have done the business will be pretty much  
dead in a couple of years. Unless they learn how to adapt and work  
with a different business model.


Back in the 1940s though early 1960s they worked on singles (45s)  
model but that went out the window when they started focusing on  
album sales. I think they need to go back to that. It is very rare  
that an artist will produce something that is so good for an entire  
album.



On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Bosco Bosco   
wrote:



This will be an interesting time for the music business. Other  
copyright issues have already begun with acts like the Beatles and  
the Stones. The int

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Keith Johnson]

One thing iTunes helped do was make singles popular again. Lots of people only 
download select singles from iTunes, rather than whole albums. 

- Original Message - 
From: "Mr. Worf"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:31:03 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries 






If every major act out there starts doing like what the Eagles are planning, 
and what Prince, Nine inch nails, George Michael, Radiohead and others have 
done the business will be pretty much dead in a couple of years. Unless they 
learn how to adapt and work with a different business model. 

Back in the 1940s though early 1960s they worked on singles (45s) model but 
that went out the window when they started focusing on album sales. I think 
they need to go back to that. It is very rare that an artist will produce 
something that is so good for an entire album. 


On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Bosco Bosco < ironpi...@yahoo.com > wrote: 





This will be an interesting time for the music business. Other copyright issues 
have already begun with acts like the Beatles and the Stones. The interesting 
part will be if artists, as in the aforementioned Nicholas Cage bankruptcy 
thread, become business saavy enough to run the business part of their music 
without the massive infastructure that has supported the business for so long. 
The fall out from this is gonna be really really interesting for years and 
years to come. The music business beast may finally be felled but the results 
may not be as pleasant as many would hope for. I'm watching with intense 
interest. 

Bosco 

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Mr. Worf < hellomahog...@gmail.com > wrote: 



From: Mr. Worf < hellomahog...@gmail.com > 

Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 5:28 PM 








This has the potential to really hurt the music industry. 


• By Eliot Van Buskirk Email Author
• November 13, 2009 | 
• 3:17 pm | 
• Categories: Intellectual Property , Media 

The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were tumultuous years for 
the music industry. A time bomb embedded in legislation from that era, the U.S. 
Copyright Act of 1976, could bring another round of tumult to the business, due 
to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — 
or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so. 

At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find 
themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they 
need is to start losing valuable copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, 
much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. 
Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion. 

“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big problem for 
the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of Eveline 
Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law. 

“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein . 
“It’s just a matter of time.” 

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist 
or author sold a copyright before 1978 ( Section 304 ), they or their heirs can 
take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during 
or after 1978 ( Section 203 ), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. 
Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose 
sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, 
and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated. 

The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year, 
according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,” said Eveline. “Just think of what 
the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don’t need a 
record company now…. You’ll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under 
construction) and get all their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.” 

Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window), according 
to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave the copyright grant 
where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms. 

“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said Bernstein. “If 
they have a publishing company that’s making money for them, and collecting it 
and paying them well, they may just want a higher royalty. Or if they’re 
unhappy, they get it back.” 

This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. 
“It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright.” 

The only exceptions, he said, are derivative works such as movies based on 
novels that include certain music in their soundtracks, because C

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Bosco Bosco]

I would disagree. I think great albums continue to be made on a regular basis. 
We could take a trip down to Waterloo Records in Austin and I could pull 
literally thousands of full albums made in the last few years that were 
awesome. The quality issue is less about single vs album and more about the 
tidal wave of people recording music who simply shouldn't be doing it. We've 
got about the same number of great albums and singles coming every year but 
we've got an exponentially higher number of hacks watering down the pool with 
their drivel. That's been the issue since the start of digital revolution.

Assuming, however that you are correct and the major players all bail to self 
released and self financed business models. What does that leave for the new 
guys? With the enormous pool of artists recording and releasing the songs, how 
do they get noticed without a well honed marketing machine to help create 
awareness? With the ease and virtual non cost of home recording and digital 
distribution the pool of people making music is going to continue to increase. 
The quality releases by unknowns and lesser knowns will simply disappear into 
the miasma of plain and pointless that's already drowning the industry. 

The music industry is a bloated demon but without it, lots of things are going 
to be lost. I'm not sure missing the next Prince or Dylan or whoever is the 
intended goal but it seems a likely one to occur.

Bosco

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing  
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 4:31 AM







 



  



  
  
  If every major act out there starts doing like what the Eagles are 
planning, and what Prince, Nine inch nails, George Michael, Radiohead and 
others have done the business will be pretty much dead in a couple of years. 
Unless they learn how to adapt and work with a different business model. 


Back in the 1940s though early 1960s they worked on singles (45s) model but 
that went out the window when they started focusing on album sales. I think 
they need to go back to that. It is very rare that an artist will produce 
something that is so good for an entire album. 


On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:


























This will be an interesting time for the music business. Other copyright issues 
have already begun with acts like the Beatles and the Stones. The interesting 
part will be if artists, as in the aforementioned Nicholas Cage bankruptcy 
thread, become business saavy enough to run the business part of their music 
without the massive infastructure that has supported the business for so long. 
The fall out from this is gonna be really really interesting for years and 
years to come. The music business beast may finally be felled but the results 
may not be as pleasant as many would hope for. I'm watching with intense 
interest.


Bosco

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:


From: Mr. Worf
 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries
To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com

Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 5:28 PM







 




  
  
  This has the potential to really hurt the music industry. 
By Eliot Van Buskirk



November 13, 2009 | 

3:17 pm | 

   Categories: Intellectual Property,  Media



The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were
tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in
legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring
another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow
authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very
least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so.
At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music
publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented
contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable
copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, much of which still
sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless,
the wheels are already in motion.
“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big
problem for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of 
Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.

“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. 
“It’s just a matter of time.”
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist 
or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can 
take it back 56 years 

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Mr. Worf]

If every major act out there starts doing like what the Eagles are planning,
and what Prince, Nine inch nails, George Michael, Radiohead and others have
done the business will be pretty much dead in a couple of years. Unless they
learn how to adapt and work with a different business model.

Back in the 1940s though early 1960s they worked on singles (45s) model but
that went out the window when they started focusing on album sales. I think
they need to go back to that. It is very rare that an artist will produce
something that is so good for an entire album.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Bosco Bosco  wrote:

>
>
> This will be an interesting time for the music business. Other copyright
> issues have already begun with acts like the Beatles and the Stones. The
> interesting part will be if artists, as in the aforementioned Nicholas Cage
> bankruptcy thread, become business saavy enough to run the business part of
> their music without the massive infastructure that has supported the
> business for so long. The fall out from this is gonna be really really
> interesting for years and years to come. The music business beast may
> finally be felled but the results may not be as pleasant as many would hope
> for. I'm watching with intense interest.
>
> Bosco
>
> --- On *Sat, 11/14/09, Mr. Worf * wrote:
>
>
> From: Mr. Worf 
>
> Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing
> Industries
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 5:28 PM
>
>
>
>
> This has the potential to really hurt the music industry.
>
>- By Eliot Van Buskirk <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/author/eliotvb/> 
> [image:
>Email Author] <http://mc/compose?to=elio...@gmail.com>
>- November 13, 2009  |
>- 3:17 pm  |
>- Categories: Intellectual 
> Property<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/category/intellectual-property/>,
>Media <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/category/media/>
>
>
> The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were tumultuous years
> for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in legislation from that era,
> the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring another round of tumult to the
> business, due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate
> copyright grants — or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by
> threatening to do so.
>
> At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers,
> find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing
> they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and
> ’80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently
> released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion.
>
> “The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big problem
> for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg 
> Eveline<http://nolaentertainmentlaw.com/pages/Bios.html>of Eveline Davis & 
> Phillips Entertainment Law.
>
> “It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert
> Bernstein <http://www.robert-bernsteinlaw.com/>. “It’s just a matter of
> time.”
>
> The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an
> artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 
> 304<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#304>),
> they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author
> sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 
> 203<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203>),
> they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper
> paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording
> copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on.
> For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
>
> The Eagles plan to file grant termination 
> notices<http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202434372952>by the 
> end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,” said
> Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their
> whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll be able to go
> to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs.
> They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”
>
> Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window),
> according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave the
> copyright grant where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms.
>
> “There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said Bernstein.
> “If they have a publishing company that’s making money for them, and
> collecting it and paying them wel

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Bosco Bosco]

Yeah but the loss of infrastructure with nothing to replace it will devastating 
to the creative as well as the non-creative. The industry, for all of it's 
faults and issues, is still necessary to the process. 


Bosco

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Martin Baxter  wrote:

From: Martin Baxter 
Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries
To: "SciFiNoir2" 
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 5:47 PM







 



  



  
  
  


Considering how the industry has, in recent years, done everything it could to 
restrict creativity and originality in favor of churning out generic crap, I'm 
hard-pressed to feel a measure of sympathy.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com
From: HelloMahogany@ gmail.com
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:28:50 -0800
Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  This has the potential to really hurt the music industry. 

By Eliot Van Buskirk



November 13, 2009 | 

3:17 pm | 

   Categories: Intellectual Property,  Media


The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were
tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in
legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring
another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow
authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very
least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so.
At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music
publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented
contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable
copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, much of which still
sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless,
the wheels are already in motion.

“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big
problem for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of 
Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.

“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. 
“It’s just a matter of time.”

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist 
or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can 
take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during 
or after 1978 (Section 203),
they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper
paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording
copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so
on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.

The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices
by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,”
said Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get
back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll
be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all
their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”

Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window),
according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave
the copyright grant where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms.

“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said
Bernstein. “If they have a publishing company that’s making money for
them, and collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a
higher royalty. Or if they’re unhappy, they get it back.”

This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said
Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright.”

The only exceptions, he said, are
derivative works such as movies based on novels that include certain
music in their soundtracks, because Congress decided it was unfair to
ask publishers to give those licenses back to artists and authors.

The record labels tried to defuse this bomb in 1999 by sneaking an
amendment to the Copyright Act through the House of Representatives
that would add sound recordings to the Act’s list of copyrights that
were considered “works for hire,” which would make them exceptions to
the grant termination clause. According to one source close to the
situation, the labels told Congress that the Copyright Act already
covered sound recordings as exceptions because albums of music are
“compilations” — but that “just to be absolutely clear, [the labels]
wanted to put it in so nobody can 

Re: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Bosco Bosco]

This will be an interesting time for the music business. Other copyright issues 
have already begun with acts like the Beatles and the Stones. The interesting 
part will be if artists, as in the aforementioned Nicholas Cage bankruptcy 
thread, become business saavy enough to run the business part of their music 
without the massive infastructure that has supported the business for so long. 
The fall out from this is gonna be really really interesting for years and 
years to come. The music business beast may finally be felled but the results 
may not be as pleasant as many would hope for. I'm watching with intense 
interest.

Bosco

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 5:28 PM







 



  



  
  
  This has the potential to really hurt the music industry. 
By Eliot Van Buskirk



November 13, 2009 | 

3:17 pm | 

   Categories: Intellectual Property,  Media


The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were
tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in
legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring
another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow
authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very
least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so.
At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music
publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented
contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable
copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, much of which still
sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless,
the wheels are already in motion.
“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big
problem for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of 
Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.
“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. 
“It’s just a matter of time.”
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist 
or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can 
take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during 
or after 1978 (Section 203),
they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper
paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording
copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so
on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices
by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,”
said Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get
back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll
be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all
their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”
Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window),
according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave
the copyright grant where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms.
“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said
Bernstein. “If they have a publishing company that’s making money for
them, and collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a
higher royalty. Or if they’re unhappy, they get it back.”
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said
Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright.”
The only exceptions, he said, are
derivative works such as movies based on novels that include certain
music in their soundtracks, because Congress decided it was unfair to
ask publishers to give those licenses back to artists and authors.
The record labels tried to defuse this bomb in 1999 by sneaking an
amendment to the Copyright Act through the House of Representatives
that would add sound recordings to the Act’s list of copyrights that
were considered “works for hire,” which would make them exceptions to
the grant termination clause. According to one source close to the
situation, the labels told Congress that the Copyright Act already
covered sound recordings as exceptions because albums of music are
“compilations” — but that “just to be absolutely clear, [the labels]
wanted to put it in so nobody can debate it.”
After musicians, including Carly Simon, reacted negatively, the
amendment was withdrawn amid public outcry leaving record labels with
precisely two options for fending off notices of termination, neither
of which looks promising. The

RE: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Martin Baxter]

Considering how the industry has, in recent years, done everything it could to 
restrict creativity and originality in favor of churning out generic crap, I'm 
hard-pressed to feel a measure of sympathy.

"If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody 
hell hired the director?" -- Charles L Grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik




To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
From: hellomahog...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:28:50 -0800
Subject: [scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing 
Industries


















 



  



  
  
  This has the potential to really hurt the music industry. 

By Eliot Van Buskirk



November 13, 2009 | 

3:17 pm | 

   Categories: Intellectual Property,  Media


The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were
tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in
legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring
another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow
authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very
least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so.
At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music
publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented
contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable
copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s music, much of which still
sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless,
the wheels are already in motion.

“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big
problem for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg Eveline of 
Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.

“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. 
“It’s just a matter of time.”

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist 
or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can 
take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during 
or after 1978 (Section 203),
they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper
paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording
copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so
on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.

The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices
by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,”
said Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get
back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll
be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all
their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”

Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window),
according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave
the copyright grant where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms.

“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said
Bernstein. “If they have a publishing company that’s making money for
them, and collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a
higher royalty. Or if they’re unhappy, they get it back.”

This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said
Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright.”

The only exceptions, he said, are
derivative works such as movies based on novels that include certain
music in their soundtracks, because Congress decided it was unfair to
ask publishers to give those licenses back to artists and authors.

The record labels tried to defuse this bomb in 1999 by sneaking an
amendment to the Copyright Act through the House of Representatives
that would add sound recordings to the Act’s list of copyrights that
were considered “works for hire,” which would make them exceptions to
the grant termination clause. According to one source close to the
situation, the labels told Congress that the Copyright Act already
covered sound recordings as exceptions because albums of music are
“compilations” — but that “just to be absolutely clear, [the labels]
wanted to put it in so nobody can debate it.”

After musicians, including Carly Simon, reacted negatively, the
amendment was withdrawn amid public outcry leaving record labels with
precisely two options for fending off notices of termination, neither
of which looks promising. The first is to continue to claim that albums
are compilations, which doesn’t pass the common-sense test
(compilations include songs from different artists), and probably won’t
pass legal muster either.

“Everybody kind of snickers at that [strategy],” said Eve

[scifinoir2] Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries

[Mr. Worf]

This has the potential to really hurt the music industry.

   - By Eliot Van Buskirk
 [image:
   Email Author] 
   - November 13, 2009  |
   - 3:17 pm  |
   - Categories: Intellectual
Property,
   Media 


The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were tumultuous years
for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in legislation from that era,
the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring another round of tumult to the
business, due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate
copyright grants — or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by
threatening to do so.

At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find
themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they
need is to start losing valuable copyrights to ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s
music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently
released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion.

“The termination that’s going to be coming up is going to be a big problem
for the record companies and publishers,” said attorney Greg
Evelineof Eveline
Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law.

“It’s written into the statute,” said entertainment lawyer Robert
Bernstein.
“It’s just a matter of time.”

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an
artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section
304),
they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author
sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section
203),
they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper
paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording
copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on.
For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.

The Eagles plan to file grant termination
noticesby
the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,”
said
Eveline. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their
whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll be able to go
to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs.
They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”

Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window),
according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave the
copyright grant where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms.

“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said Bernstein.
“If they have a publishing company that’s making money for them, and
collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a higher royalty. Or
if they’re unhappy, they get it back.”

This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein.
“It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright.”

The only exceptions, he said, are derivative works such as movies based on
novels that include certain music in their soundtracks, because Congress
decided it was unfair to ask publishers to give those licenses back to
artists and authors.

The record labels tried to defuse this bomb in 1999 by sneaking an amendment
to the Copyright Act through the House of Representatives that would add
sound recordings to the Act’s list of copyrights that were considered “works
for hire,” which would make them exceptions to the grant termination clause.
According to one source close to the situation, the labels told Congress
that the Copyright Act already covered sound recordings as exceptions
because albums of music are “compilations” — but that “just to be absolutely
clear, [the labels] wanted to put it in so nobody can debate it.”

After musicians, including Carly Simon, reacted negatively, the amendment
was withdrawn amid public outcry leaving record labels with precisely two
options for fending off notices of termination, neither of which looks
promising. The first is to continue to claim that albums are compilations,
which doesn’t pass the common-sense test (compilations include songs from
different artists), and probably won’t pass legal muster either.

“Everybody kind of snickers at that [strategy],” said Eveline.

The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new
sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35
years for copyright grant termination. Eveline characterized the labels’
conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old
mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”

Labels already file new copyrights for remasters. For example, Sony Music filed
a new 
copyright