[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Mercury co-founder Irving Green passes
I don't think that perpetual copyright is a bad thing if something were
implemented like you suggest. Otherwise, I'm afraid that we could see works
disappear completely. Kind of like a "tragedy of the commons" where
everyone uses a natural resource but neglect the upkeep. It's the denial of
access that's definitely wrong. The artists didn't produce their product
for some moronic imbecile to hide it in a bunker. I doubt that a system
like you suggest will happen with the current group of business friendlies
in charge of things. Their model is short sighted. They're shooting
themselves in their feet. If there was some agreement that allowed an
upfront royalty payment, who'd lose? If there was a model that allowed for
a reissue after the work had been out of print, or orphaned, and royalties
were paid to either the copyright owners or some vague clearing house that
could hold the money in escrow for claimants, who'd get wronged? The answer
is obvious. Everyone would benefit. Even the largest of outfits don't have
the manpower and resources to go through their vast back catalog and figure
out which recordings SHOULD be reissued. With a tiny outfit coming in,
footing the production costs, issuing something that is out of print, and
generating a new market, it'd be like the big outfit hiring a subcontractor
to do work for them. A new market for them. A new revenue stream too. But
I'm not holding my breath that lawmakers would force something like this.
Phillip
Now, what I would like to see is a more reasonable copyright system. One
idea I've had is, perhaps 35-40 years exclusive copyright on something
with perhaps up to 15 years renewal if it remains in print throughout the
whole period. If, during the copyright period, something is out of print 5
years or more, another party may pay a royalty and have access to a
reasonable facsimile of the master for reissue. I'd even support up-front
reissue-rights payment with a smaller royalty paid on each item sold,
which would protect copyright owners from fly-by-nights and people with
big ideas but small wallets and little common sense. Under this system, it
would be in the copyright owner's interest to provide a good quality
version to the 3rd party so as to maintain the value of their product even
if they themselves don't have it in print for one reason or another. Under
this system, no matter what, after that 15 year extension -- max -- the
content goes into PD. Big copyright owners will say that doesn't give them
enough time to amortize risks, but I say they take few risks these days
anyway. This would apply to music, books, movies and other copyright items
(including software and games). Now I'll duck as the tomatos fly!
-- Tom Fine