4 ms·

Sony Issues Dylan CDs to Extend Copyright

66 points by brkumar 14y ago

nicholassmith 14y ago
That's surprisingly honest from Sony labelling it as what it is, rather than pretending whilst we all can see what it's purpose was. Seems like another example of how much copyright laws need reworking when things like this are par for the course though.
- objclxt 14y ago
  It is worth noting that when the extension was first proposed the European Commission paid for a report that recommended the law remain as it was, since none of the arguments for a copyright extension were convincing. Thanks to some rather effective lobbying this was ignored, although the proposal was modified from the 95 years the industry wanted to 50 years. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf is the report itself, if you are interested in such things. Interestingly, you'll find certain artists much more passionate about retaining their recording rights than others. Cliff Richard was one of the major proponents for the EU extension, whereas Noel Gallagher is on the record as not really caring at all[1]. It's not a coincidence that the former wrote virtually none of his songs, and the latter will own much more lucrative publishing rights (which have the standard life+70 clause) in addition to recording rights. [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law-beatles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extens...
  - alexkus 14y ago
    They're probably happy with 50 years. Ask for 95 years and then get beaten down to 50 years and make them think the other side 'won' something by getting it down from 95.
    - koralatov 14y ago
      I'd agree with that. It's a classic negotiating tactic, like when you ask for a pay-rise: you want 10%, so you ask for 20%; they baulk at your `insane' demand, then you `settle' for a more reasonable 10%.
    - Avenger42 14y ago
      Not to mention all it really means is they're coming back to lobby again in 50 years, instead of 95 years. It's not like they win the battle once and don't fight it again.
- koralatov 14y ago
  It is pretty astounding that they're so open about the reasoning behind it. This boxset reminds me of ashcan copies[1], which I read about a while ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  As much as I'd like to see copyright terms reduced, this law clearly had the intended effect. Without the copyright extension, it sounds like Sony would not have released these old recordings at all. They don't really seem to be music lovers, and they have no reason to hold on to old recordings unless they can sell them.
revelation 14y ago
recordings cannot benefit from the 20-year extension unless they were published before the 50-year term expired. I think I've found out what made me pause when reading this: they implicitly assume that previous works will automatically have their protection extended. Of course this kind of logic only works in the whole "copyright" kerfuffle of corruption. Money can even buy you works in the public domain back, if you missed to lobby in time for a new ex post facto extension.
mwexler 14y ago
This reminds me of "The Fantastic Four" movie first released in 1994. Done in about a month for a (relatively) meager budget by Roger Corman, the movie was rushed out solely to keep the option to make a bigger film in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film) for more info...
darkarmani 14y ago
How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works?? There isn't a single valid reason to ever extend copyright retroactively unless the goal is forever copyright. Does the gov't at least get a portion of the take when granting longer monopoly privileges?
- rbehrends 14y ago
  Well, we're talking about Europe here, and the rationale underlying continental European copyright is not the same as that for British/US copyright. Continental European copyright (which generally is not called "copyright", but some variation on "author's right", such as "droit d'auteur") assumes that authors have a natural, personal, inalienable right in their creations (following Kant and Beaumarchais) because each creative work embodies part of the author's personality. In short: the continental European model treats copyright as a right, not as a privilege. Whether that right encourages people to produce new works is absolutely irrelevant under that theory; its goal is to protect authors, not to incentivize creation. Note, for example, that under French law, moral rights are indeed perpetual, lasting forever (which does create the occasional problem for museums).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- streptomycin 14y ago
  It gives hope to current content producers that their copyrights are more likely to be extended (or at least not reduced), which would clearly encourage them. It's still a bad idea IMHO, but the incentives are clear.
- muuh-gnu 14y ago
  > How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works? You wrongly assume that a reasoning for a law has to actually make sense. You can push basically any logically inconsistent apologetics into law, as long as you have enough people in power supporting you. You're wasting your time trying to logically explain something what was never built on sound reasoning in the first place. It's just a power-based money grab, thats it.
rplnt 14y ago
Is there any reason for copyrights so long? I see what labels gain from it, but I guess the politicians approving these must have argued it to the public somehow. Or did they just say that the labels want this law so they will implement it? I can't see any reason in it. The 50 years was way too long anyways.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Because the other stakeholder, the public, has no real effective representation on this issue. Most people don't understand copyright, don't really feel the problem of having culture and expression locked under a single entity for a very long time.
- laumars 14y ago
  > Is there any reason for copyrights so long? The only reason is greed.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    What is greed? Every day startups and investors sit in a room asking "how can we make as much money as we can for as long as possible?" and they're celebrated on HN. A big bad corporation asks the same question and is called greedy. I don't get it.
    - laumars 14y ago
      It's greedy because no other industry expects a 50 year product life cycle. And what's more, manages to get consumers to pay repeatedly for the same product every 10 years. You buy an album on vinyl, then cassette, than CD, then MP3 - that's 4 separate times you'd have paid for the exact same album if you were to do things entirely legal (in the UK, it's still technically illegal to rip your own CDs). The whole thing is mental and it's at least part of the reason why piracy is so prevalent - users have gotten so fed up of paying through the nose and not owning the content, being subjected to unskippable anti-piracy adverts and DRM, that they've turned to a subculture which can give them the content they want in a format they want and without any anti-usage policies. Going back to your start up comparison, free markets are driven by companies constantly seeking customers by either the best, the cheapest or by offering a unique element. This means that companies are constantly trying to out do each other, and those that are the most expensive and provide the worst service go out of business. Yet in the content industry, the big corporations are the most expensive, and provide the worse service. And we're not just talking about a bad service, we're talking so appallingly bad that they deliberately set out to make the product crap (like I said, DRM, anti-piracy ads, etc). In any other industry, those businesses would have gone under.
trhtrsh 14y ago
To be clear, these CD are publishings of newly published works, in order to get them grandfathered in to the copyright law of today. This publication is not about copyright of already published works.
pacaro 14y ago
Somewhat off topic, but the articles inconsistent and occasional use of "Mr Dylan" makes me think of Blanche Devereaux in The Golden Girls referring to "Mr William Shakespeare" and "Mr Burt Reynolds"
weisser 14y ago
It is a bit odd that they only half-heartedly tried to monetize this. It's something I would have gladly paid for but instead I was forced to download a torrent to hear the tracks (all fantastic - the songs from the Freewheelin' album are much clearer than the actual release!). It shocks me that they are essentially forcing fans to obtain this illegally when they could have sold this set digitally with little effort (they are, but only in a couple countries) or took a bit of time and made a desirable physical release with a few photos and a nice box. For me this is a perfect example of just how incredibly aloof the major labels are. They want to extend a copyright but simultaneously cannibalize the future sales that they were hoping the copyright would ensure.
- newishuser 14y ago
  from the article: "Because Sony has been considering some tracks on “The 50th Anniversary Collection” for its Bootleg Series, a program of archival releases that now encompasses nine multidisc sets, the company decided to throw a few dozen tracks onto the market, however tenuously, to ensure their ownership. "
- gameshot911 14y ago
  >I was forced to download a torrent to hear the tracks. "Forced", huh? You don't have a right to hear the songs. Two perfectly valid options are to pay the going market rate on E-Bay, or to not listen to the songs. If Sony wants to produce a limited number of records such that it is prohibitively expensive for the audience to hear the songs, that is their right. You were in no way forced to illegally download their IP.
  - weisser 14y ago
    That's a binary way of looking at it. While what you say is 100% true it is the exact way of thinking that is destroying the music industry. You cannot make something that can be easily digitized prohibitively expensive and think that it will somehow stop access. That is a laughable notion. Great demand will cause it to be redistributed. "Forced" is obvious hyperbole and I think you know that.
newishuser 14y ago
This isn't really anything interesting unless you're a Dylan collector. No boundaries of copyright are being pushed, no new faces of record label greed are being shown, there's nothing to even talk about really. It's just a major label releasing some work to opt into the 20 year extension on copyright in the UK. With out the words Bob and Dylan this is just normal, lame, day to day record label business.

66 points by brkumar 14y ago

That's surprisingly honest from Sony labelling it as what it is, rather than pretending whilst we all can see what it's purpose was. Seems like another example of how much copyright laws need reworking when things like this are par for the course though.

objclxt 14y ago
It is worth noting that when the extension was first proposed the European Commission paid for a report that recommended the law remain as it was, since none of the arguments for a copyright extension were convincing. Thanks to some rather effective lobbying this was ignored, although the proposal was modified from the 95 years the industry wanted to 50 years. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf is the report itself, if you are interested in such things. Interestingly, you'll find certain artists much more passionate about retaining their recording rights than others. Cliff Richard was one of the major proponents for the EU extension, whereas Noel Gallagher is on the record as not really caring at all[1]. It's not a coincidence that the former wrote virtually none of his songs, and the latter will own much more lucrative publishing rights (which have the standard life+70 clause) in addition to recording rights. [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law-beatles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extens...
- alexkus 14y ago
  They're probably happy with 50 years. Ask for 95 years and then get beaten down to 50 years and make them think the other side 'won' something by getting it down from 95.
  - koralatov 14y ago
    I'd agree with that. It's a classic negotiating tactic, like when you ask for a pay-rise: you want 10%, so you ask for 20%; they baulk at your `insane' demand, then you `settle' for a more reasonable 10%.
  - Avenger42 14y ago
    Not to mention all it really means is they're coming back to lobby again in 50 years, instead of 95 years. It's not like they win the battle once and don't fight it again.
koralatov 14y ago
It is pretty astounding that they're so open about the reasoning behind it. This boxset reminds me of ashcan copies[1], which I read about a while ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy
lukeschlather 14y ago
As much as I'd like to see copyright terms reduced, this law clearly had the intended effect. Without the copyright extension, it sounds like Sony would not have released these old recordings at all. They don't really seem to be music lovers, and they have no reason to hold on to old recordings unless they can sell them.

revelation 14y ago

recordings cannot benefit from the 20-year extension unless they were published before the 50-year term expired. I think I've found out what made me pause when reading this: they implicitly assume that previous works will automatically have their protection extended. Of course this kind of logic only works in the whole "copyright" kerfuffle of corruption. Money can even buy you works in the public domain back, if you missed to lobby in time for a new ex post facto extension.

mwexler 14y ago

This reminds me of "The Fantastic Four" movie first released in 1994. Done in about a month for a (relatively) meager budget by Roger Corman, the movie was rushed out solely to keep the option to make a bigger film in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film) for more info...

darkarmani 14y ago

How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works?? There isn't a single valid reason to ever extend copyright retroactively unless the goal is forever copyright. Does the gov't at least get a portion of the take when granting longer monopoly privileges?

rbehrends 14y ago
Well, we're talking about Europe here, and the rationale underlying continental European copyright is not the same as that for British/US copyright. Continental European copyright (which generally is not called "copyright", but some variation on "author's right", such as "droit d'auteur") assumes that authors have a natural, personal, inalienable right in their creations (following Kant and Beaumarchais) because each creative work embodies part of the author's personality. In short: the continental European model treats copyright as a right, not as a privilege. Whether that right encourages people to produce new works is absolutely irrelevant under that theory; its goal is to protect authors, not to incentivize creation. Note, for example, that under French law, moral rights are indeed perpetual, lasting forever (which does create the occasional problem for museums).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
streptomycin 14y ago
It gives hope to current content producers that their copyrights are more likely to be extended (or at least not reduced), which would clearly encourage them. It's still a bad idea IMHO, but the incentives are clear.
muuh-gnu 14y ago
> How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works? You wrongly assume that a reasoning for a law has to actually make sense. You can push basically any logically inconsistent apologetics into law, as long as you have enough people in power supporting you. You're wasting your time trying to logically explain something what was never built on sound reasoning in the first place. It's just a power-based money grab, thats it.

rplnt 14y ago

Is there any reason for copyrights so long? I see what labels gain from it, but I guess the politicians approving these must have argued it to the public somehow. Or did they just say that the labels want this law so they will implement it? I can't see any reason in it. The 50 years was way too long anyways.

MichaelGG 14y ago
Because the other stakeholder, the public, has no real effective representation on this issue. Most people don't understand copyright, don't really feel the problem of having culture and expression locked under a single entity for a very long time.
laumars 14y ago
> Is there any reason for copyrights so long? The only reason is greed.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  What is greed? Every day startups and investors sit in a room asking "how can we make as much money as we can for as long as possible?" and they're celebrated on HN. A big bad corporation asks the same question and is called greedy. I don't get it.
  - laumars 14y ago
    It's greedy because no other industry expects a 50 year product life cycle. And what's more, manages to get consumers to pay repeatedly for the same product every 10 years. You buy an album on vinyl, then cassette, than CD, then MP3 - that's 4 separate times you'd have paid for the exact same album if you were to do things entirely legal (in the UK, it's still technically illegal to rip your own CDs). The whole thing is mental and it's at least part of the reason why piracy is so prevalent - users have gotten so fed up of paying through the nose and not owning the content, being subjected to unskippable anti-piracy adverts and DRM, that they've turned to a subculture which can give them the content they want in a format they want and without any anti-usage policies. Going back to your start up comparison, free markets are driven by companies constantly seeking customers by either the best, the cheapest or by offering a unique element. This means that companies are constantly trying to out do each other, and those that are the most expensive and provide the worst service go out of business. Yet in the content industry, the big corporations are the most expensive, and provide the worse service. And we're not just talking about a bad service, we're talking so appallingly bad that they deliberately set out to make the product crap (like I said, DRM, anti-piracy ads, etc). In any other industry, those businesses would have gone under.

trhtrsh 14y ago

To be clear, these CD are publishings of newly published works, in order to get them grandfathered in to the copyright law of today. This publication is not about copyright of already published works.

pacaro 14y ago

Somewhat off topic, but the articles inconsistent and occasional use of "Mr Dylan" makes me think of Blanche Devereaux in The Golden Girls referring to "Mr William Shakespeare" and "Mr Burt Reynolds"

weisser 14y ago

It is a bit odd that they only half-heartedly tried to monetize this. It's something I would have gladly paid for but instead I was forced to download a torrent to hear the tracks (all fantastic - the songs from the Freewheelin' album are much clearer than the actual release!). It shocks me that they are essentially forcing fans to obtain this illegally when they could have sold this set digitally with little effort (they are, but only in a couple countries) or took a bit of time and made a desirable physical release with a few photos and a nice box. For me this is a perfect example of just how incredibly aloof the major labels are. They want to extend a copyright but simultaneously cannibalize the future sales that they were hoping the copyright would ensure.

newishuser 14y ago
from the article: "Because Sony has been considering some tracks on “The 50th Anniversary Collection” for its Bootleg Series, a program of archival releases that now encompasses nine multidisc sets, the company decided to throw a few dozen tracks onto the market, however tenuously, to ensure their ownership. "
gameshot911 14y ago
>I was forced to download a torrent to hear the tracks. "Forced", huh? You don't have a right to hear the songs. Two perfectly valid options are to pay the going market rate on E-Bay, or to not listen to the songs. If Sony wants to produce a limited number of records such that it is prohibitively expensive for the audience to hear the songs, that is their right. You were in no way forced to illegally download their IP.
- weisser 14y ago
  That's a binary way of looking at it. While what you say is 100% true it is the exact way of thinking that is destroying the music industry. You cannot make something that can be easily digitized prohibitively expensive and think that it will somehow stop access. That is a laughable notion. Great demand will cause it to be redistributed. "Forced" is obvious hyperbole and I think you know that.

newishuser 14y ago

This isn't really anything interesting unless you're a Dylan collector. No boundaries of copyright are being pushed, no new faces of record label greed are being shown, there's nothing to even talk about really. It's just a major label releasing some work to opt into the 20 year extension on copyright in the UK. With out the words Bob and Dylan this is just normal, lame, day to day record label business.