SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html dept.
The latest battle has been over their classic song "Stairway to Heaven," and amazingly, court proceedings are now in their fifth year. On September 23rd, the battle continues — once again — in federal court.
That's when the full 'en banc' panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the copyright infringement lawsuit that the descendants of Randy Wolfe initially filed against Led Zeppelin. The descendants insist that the opening cords of "Stairway to Heaven" were stolen from a song that the late guitarist wrote called "Taurus," which was performed by the band Spirit.
[...] In August, more than 120 music artists filed an amicus brief in support of the band. The artists have said that if the lawsuit against Led Zeppelin succeeds, it could seriously hamper creativity in music. Even more impressively, the U.S. government also filed an amicus brief on behalf of Led Zeppelin, citing the need to "foster innovation and creative expression."
Previously:
Led Zeppelin Appear in Court Over Stairway to Heaven Vs Spirits Taurus Dispute
Music Copyright Laws Worsen as Artists Give Up
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:35PM (11 children)
Nuts. Creators gain nothing from nutty copyright law. Drop copyright term to 3 to 5 years. Sanity might return.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:00PM (9 children)
3 to 5 isn't really enough for a common person to adequately disseminate a work, particularly to the global markets - but it is about the right timeframe for a major label like Sony to finish a rollout and extract significant sales volumes/profits.
I like a "pay to play" approach to copyright. Declare for free, get those 3 years covered just by publishing and declaring "this is mine." If, at the end of 3 years, you think your work merits further protection, send in a nominal - say $10 - filing fee with any/all agencies you seek copyright protection with. That fee might buy you another 3 years. Sales going well? This thing is worth protecting some more? Fine. Double the filing fee and get another 3 years. This is 9 years of copyright protection for $30, hardly onerous, particularly since the fees start at 0 for the first 3 years. 9 years is coming up, do you think that ongoing copyright protection is something you want to pursue? Good, your next filing fee for the next 3 years is $40. 12-15 costs $80, 15-18 costs $160, 18-21 costs $320 - if you haven't made an additional $630 on your copyrighted work in the first 21 years, you probably didn't need copyright protection in the first place... but, 21-24 $640, 24-27 $1280, 27-30 $2560... getting serious now, something like Stairway to Heaven is probably worth the investment, but, otherwise, maybe 30 years is time to let it go public domain? 30-33 $5120, 33-36 $10240, 36-39 $20480, 39-42 $40960, 42-45 $81920, 45-48 $163840, 48-51 $327680 - now we're getting up in Mickey Mouse territory, 50 years old and still worth over $300K to keep that copyright protection going. Don't like it? Don't pay - copyright enforcement costs the courts and everyone else, if you, the rights holder, are still making a living off of material that was copyrighted over 50 years ago, it's high time to be giving some of those profits back to the system that protects your copyright. 51-54 $655360, 54-57 $1.3M, 57-60 $2.6M... now we're into million dollar a year territory, Mickey Mouse may be worth it, but Donald Duck? Goofy? I anticipate "group copyright" becoming a thing, where the whole cast of characters comes under a single filing, and, that's O.K. because: 63-66 $5.2M, 66-69 $10.4M, 69-72 $20.8M, 72-75 $41.6M - I'm O.K. with Disney having 75+ year copyrights, really I am, totally cool with that, they can even keep them longer if they want: years 75-78 $83.2M, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:27PM (2 children)
This is literally the worse idea I have ever heard. The idea of some sort of copyright system is to encourage innovation. Not make protecting your intellectual property impossible for the little guy nor to suck trillions of dollars from artists into the hands of accountants, lawyers, and law makers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 22 2019, @11:43PM
Look at the figures again. If you aren't making well over those amounts in profit, there's nothing worth protecting no matter how small you are.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:46AM
Also, the last I checked lots of bands are making more money from touring ( https://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-musicians-make-money-2018-10/ [businessinsider.com] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/how-musicians-make-money-or-dont-at-all-in-2018-706745/ [rollingstone.com] ) than due to copyright related income streams. Seems that's been true for a long time.
I also know some small time musicians and they don't earn the bulk of their money from albums or singles either.
So even if copyright law completely didn't exist it wouldn't affect the artists that much.
And see also: https://genius.com/Steve-albini-the-problem-with-music-annotated [genius.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 22 2019, @09:42PM (2 children)
For the common person, you could see the time limit to the heat death of the universe and it still wouldn't be enough time.
I do like the exponentially increasing fees. Someone like Disney probably would lobby to cap the fees. But not much different than the present infinite expansion of copyright.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 23 2019, @12:51AM (1 child)
Someone like Disney probably would
lobbywrite a law and pay congress to pass it to cap the fees.FTFY.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 23 2019, @01:25AM
This is my thinking - they're already investing millions in distorting the law for their own benefit and screwing up everyone else in the process... why not just formalize it, systematize it, and get it out in the open: who really cares about copyright on their material? If that's Disney and they've kept the Marvel copyrights up-to-date to the tune of millions of dollars in the recent filing, then, sure, people should respect that.
If Jimi Hendrix estate has decided that the filing fees aren't worth it anymore, then that becomes public record too, and electric ladyland is now fair game for remixing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday September 23 2019, @08:21AM (2 children)
It's far from the worst idea I've ever heard and it is certainly worth considering and debating, but I personally don't like it.
The true goal should be to make all ideas available to the public. That is what we need to protect. Patents, copyrights, etc, are simply there to encourage innovation by letting the person or entity making these things have an opportunity to profit. Even Mickey Mouse, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Indiana Jones should be public domain. There is nothing stopping the Mouse from making a new Star Wars or Indy Jones movie and hiring the original actors. But why should they be the only ones after more than 10 or 20 or 30 years? How is that benefiting the public?
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday September 23 2019, @08:33AM (1 child)
I should add: Stairway to Heaven is a perfect example of what I just gave my opinion on and why something should be public domain as soon as possible. It's a classic stepping stone for young guitarists. It's simple to play, yet boost confidence in the guitar player that they are doing ok and can now play more complex songs. (I don't know if they still teach it or not.) By dropping things into public domain ASAP, society benefits in unexpected ways. If we keep Stairway to Heaven out of public reach, then we may need to rely on a song not as well suited. Even if another song is just as challenging/easy to play, it may not be enjoyed as much by the guitar player and that can have an impact in how fast confidence is built up.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 23 2019, @12:53PM
By making the fees optional, artists can make the decision: does this popular song go public domain, or do I instead "pay taxes" to ensure it remains exclusively mine? As it is, copyright protection is "free" for all artists, and any agent or legal representation would be negligent to not enforce copyright for all works under their care.
I like the three year intervals - starting artists can just take the free 3 years, and... if a publishing house gets interested in them, they can start paying for protection. The fees don't really amount to anything significant for the first 30 years, it wouldn't be surprising to me if publishers just prepaid the first 20-30 years to avoid the clerical work and possibility of missing a filing. Further, as works approach expiration, you might see publishers offering to buy the rights and extend protection on valuable IP.
Now, how does any of this get Stairway to Heaven into the public domain any faster? Maybe it doesn't work for Stairway to Heaven, but it does open up hundreds of contemporary songs by lesser known artists which are just as good, and gives the lesser known works a competitive advantage in the popularity game, because people can practice them without fear of prosecution.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:15PM
20 years, or even 50 years, would be a vast improvement. I'm not even sure when a modern blockbuster without a sole creator goes out of copyright.