Rep. Conyers Wants To Clarify Termination Rights Under Copyright Law

from the but-in-which-direction dept

Wed, Aug 31st 2011 3:35am — Mike Masnick

With all the talk of musicians and their contested termination rights lately (as well as a few early cases about termination rights), it appears that Congress is starting to pay attention. Rep. John Conyers has stepped up to say that Congress should clarify termination rights, and it sounds as though he's going against the record labels here. While he doesn't say so directly, his statements suggest that he means making sure that artists can get back their copyrights.

If that's accurate, that's good to hear. It is a bit surprising, however, since Conyers gets a ton of money from the entertainment industry (his second largest supporters after "lawyers.") And, in the past, Conyers has been in favor of taxing radio and also locking up federally funded research behind copyright. Still, if he's really willing to help get Congress to make it clear that musicians signed to record labels were not "work for hire" situations, and should be able to terminate their copyright assignments, that would be a good step forward.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: clarification, copyright, copyright termination, john conyers, termination rights

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

anonymous, 31 Aug 2011 @ 3:52am

this is just for show. no way is he going to actually try to do anything constructive for the musicians, or anyone else for that matter. he's got too much to lose by upsetting the entertainment industries. after all, they pay better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 6:15am
  
  Re:
  It would not surprise me if it was just posturing to make hist inevitable shift to Big Content's way of thinking more persuasive even though that was his true position all along.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:09am

Leaves me cold
This dispute rather leaves me cold - for a start this "termination rights" thing - seems to be a US peculiarity - which, like many other aspects in which US law is/has been "better" than most of the rest of the world, is unlikely to survive long enough for current artists to collect on. (You know, international treaties and all.)

Secondly, why on earth should anything even BE in copyright after 35 years?

At best there is a little schadenfreude from watching two groups, who usually gang up on the public, fighting each other for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:13am
  
  Re: Leaves me cold
  Like the victim of a robbery watching two thieves fighting over the proceeds of the crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:18am
  
  Re: Leaves me cold
  "At best there is a little schadenfreude from watching two groups, who usually gang up on the public, fighting each other for a change."
  
  Who benefits when people sue each other? The lawyers. This guy works for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:24am
    
    Re: Re: Leaves me cold
    Even my schadenfreude is fading now...sigh....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 8:36am
    
    Re: Re: Leaves me cold
    To be fair, lawyers don't generally benefit from clarification of the law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Leaves me cold
    Lawyers are only tools used when two parties can't settle their differences. This quite often happens because one of the parties think that they are beyond the law or any sort of ethics.
    
    The Cult of Crassus leads to ever more abusive behavior by corporations casually excused because of "profit".
    
    Behind every lawyer there is a litigant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
USPilot, 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:15am

Not going to happen
One Congress Critter wanting something does not mean that the other 434 Representatives are suddenly going to say "You know, that John Conyers is right. We should do as he says." There is to much self-interest involved for that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Not going to happen
  One Congress Critter wanting something does not mean that the other 434 Representatives are suddenly going to say "You know, that John Conyers is right.
  It depends on two things really:
  
  1. How badly Conyers wants this to happen AND,
  2. How badly the other 434 want something else that can be negotiated
  
  Given these criteria and some good old fashioned horsetrading in the back room and you might see something happen here. The key is in how many others also will sign on to this and what they have to offer in trade to those still on the fence or opposing it when the meeting is held in said back room.
  
  Never underestimate the power of a good negotiation to get things through, regardless of public rhetoric or campaign promises to the contrary.
  
  legislating is not called sausage making without reason or precedent...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:27am

Le sigh ಠ_ಠ, my opinion is that the termination right pose a threat to legacy recording industry therefore. Magically will be argued that it does not apply/not legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:48am

Cynic mode engaged...
Hasn't he recently been redistricted and is now facing a much younger politician throwing his hat into the ring for his seat?

He has also taken a beating over the activities of his wife, and her antics of trying to get special treatment while serving her sentence.

Then there were the properties he owned that were overgrown and not maintained and nothing happened until someone called the media. He dodged comment and strung them along until they found him and stuck a camera on his face, and then was telling the reporter to not do it to him.

In the metro area you have many people who want to be famous when they grow up, so the cynic mode suggests he might just be trying to appeal to the voters to keep what he has. See when your famous I'll make sure they don't steal your music from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:42am
  
  Re:
  I also see it like this...he heard someone is getting more money from the record labels and now he wants a bigger piece of pie, but I can see where you went as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    he has been around long enough to be skilled to spin this both ways.
    See people I TRIED really hard to fix this but those other people would not.
    Then he cashes in on the votes and the "donations".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Keating, 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:52am

Congressman's Error Explained
This just in:

"The recent statements attributed to Congressman Conyers regarding the "right of termination" was taken out of context and did not accurately reflect the position of Congressman Conyers. The staff person who wrote the release incorrectly believed that the issue being addressed involved the protection of CHILDREN from the plethora of PORNOGRAPHY appearing on the Internet and the termination of copyrights claimed by the creators thereof."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:10am
  
  Re: Congressman's Error Explained
  aww crap my sarcasm meter broke I have no idea if this is real or not...
  let me know so I can figure out which way to vote for it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re: Congressman's Error Explained
    Its funny no matter how you look at it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Congressman's Error Explained
      but one way is funny haha
      and the other is funny ut oh
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 4:59am

Judgement Day
Listen John Connor, just because a Terminator saved your life once, doesn't mean they deserve "Terminator Rights", they're only machines. Or did I misread something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:00am

maybe he actually bought into the 'protecting the artists' part of the **AA's arguments for all this copyright stuff...

and is looking to protect the artists.

maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:15am

Let me get this straight...

Currently the law allows musicians to get their copyrights back.

Congress, which is heavily financed by the RIAA, wants to modify that very law to "help the artists." Even though the law is already in the artists' favor.

Ummm.... I'm going to go out on a limb here. The artists are going to get screwed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:28am
  
  Re:
  well the labels are arguing that they fall into a category that doesn't qualify for termination to happen.
  
  the artists are saying no they don't and we want to get back our copyrights.
  
  There is a chance they might side with the artists.
  There is also a chance Warren Buffet will pay more in taxes this year than his cleaning lady....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, Warren Buffet might do. Other than that, pretty accurate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AndyD273 (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 7:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Just wanted to point out that Warren Buffet will definitely pay way more than his cleaning lady this year, even if the percentage that he pays is less.
    
    I would rather have 1% of $1,000,000,000 than 90% of $100.
    
    And if his 27% (or whatever) is $47,000,000 then he'll be paying a lot more than 37% of his cleaning lady's $36,000 a year (or whatever, the numbers were made up to make a point).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Someantimalwareguy (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And if his 27% (or whatever) is $47,000,000 then he'll be paying a lot more than 37% of his cleaning lady's $36,000 a year (or whatever, the numbers were made up to make a point).
      So you are saying that those who make the least should pay a higher percentage of their overall income in taxes eh? Absolute numbers are deceptive and a 1% increase in taxation for those at the top is not felt at all while those at the middle or bottom of the pecking order could be placed in a position where they have to make a decision about whether to pay for rent this month or for their medications to keep them healthy...
      
      Nice - running for Marquis de Sade or just shillin' for LULZ?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 5:33am

typo
Clairfy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doubtful, 31 Aug 2011 @ 6:19am

clarify termination rights,
clarify termination rights? Who said it has to be on the side of the artist? He could side with the industry, by clarifying that termination rights do not exist, or are extremely rare.
This is, after all, a lawyer & politician.

Ruling body: "the best politicians money can buy"
or When do you know when a lawyer is lying?
When his lips are moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 31 Aug 2011 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: clarify termination rights,
  You've hit it, friend. Here, "clarify" is as (or more) likely to favor Big Content as it is to favor the artists. The clarification could well be that, "as in the Bob Marley case, ALL songs recorded by musicians under their contracts with music labels are Works Made for Hire." Or some such. Could go the other way, but I'm of course not holding my breath. Easy for Conyers to paint this as pro-artist, given the even or better chance of the result coming out the opposite. Then he gets it both ways fa sho.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 6:25am

one of the reasons i have hated these MAFIAA for decades.
they have screwed over artists and some were people i knew tying up their music for years after they were dropped from the label they stupidly signed with.
LESSON LEARNED:::

Sign with any RIAA/Big Label and you are a traitor to the rest of us Artists.You are a sell-out and now you will get what you deserve.

Should of stayed INDIE/DIY and you will be better off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pedant 451, 31 Aug 2011 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re:
  "Should of stayed INDIE/DIY" - this irks me almost as much as the lose/loose problem :-)
  
  It's "Should have stayed INDIE/DIY". "Should of" makes no sense at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 6:37am

Have you considered that this is just a way to kill the concept in the house? Bring it up, write a piece of legislation nobody would ever vote for, put it out there, have it fail, and call it a day?

They can punt to the courts, basically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  Or a way to bring it up into the public eye before an election cycle, and then let it die on the table...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 8:10am

The easiest way for the RIAA to win this is issue is to change the language of the 1976 Copyright Act, which they already tried to do in 1999 with Mitch Glazier. So they get Conyers to ask Congress to "clarify" the language of the 1976 act, and of course nobody will go along with that unless it's "to help the artists who have been treated unfairly" so Conyers says all the right things to get people on his side.

Of course, once Congress decides the language needs to be changed, that's when the RIAA will leap in and makes sure it changes to just the language they want. Anything Conyers says now will have nothing to do with the final language that will be voted on once the lobbyists are done.

Ultimately Congress will side with the RIAA because keeping mega-corporations in business and profitable is more important for the economy than the rights of aging (and in the high profile cases we'll hear about, rich) musicians. It may cost the labels millions, but it will be cheaper than taking all the artists to court.

The only way the musicians will be able to fight it is to get their fans interested in the issue en masse, but fans don't always like it when musicians get political, and won't have a lot of sympathy for something that seems like rich musicians being greedy. The fans just want more songs about love that they can dance to. The artists will lose.

The 1976 act doesn't need any clarification. The artists should get their music back, and be able to make any deal with any label they want after that, or create their own personal label. It's the best thing that could happen to music right now, which is why it won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 8:35am

I'm all in favor of Congress clarifying aspects of law that are ambiguous, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to "clarify" something that people have relied on for nearly 35 years.

In other words, I don't think it makes sense for any clarification to be retroactive to January 1, 1978 (no matter which way he wants to "clarify" the law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 31 Aug 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  There actually is a tiny body of work as to which there truly is a question whether it's terminable or not. It covers intricacies that don't bear trotting out...because that's not the "clarification" that's being sought here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Tiny? I think not.
    
    Whether or not a sound recording made for purposes of inclusion in an album could be considered a work made for hire is not clear, and there are lots of sound recordings made for purposes of inclusion in an album under contracts that *say* they are works made for hire.
    
    The NYT article is not clear, but certainly suggests this is the clarification Conyers is talking about (not that I trust media articles to get legal issues even close to right).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dwg, 31 Aug 2011 @ 11:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No no--you're totally right about the WMFH thing. That is not in any way "tiny." The tiny thing is something totally other that relates to a small group of works made during a short amount of time, not published until another date in that small amount of time. That's the "tiny" thing I meant. The WMFH issue is the whole meat of this thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 31 Aug 2011 @ 9:23am

He's probably just trying to shake the **AA down for more "contributions,"

"oh, sure would be a shame if this 'clarification' doesn't go your way * cough cough*" holds out palm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 10:29am

Given Rep. John Conyers contributes I would take as statement as a sign that he wants a increase in his contributors - wink winky nudge nudge.

I guess I just do not trust politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2011 @ 1:00pm

I am totally cynical about a politician doing the right thing. Every once in a while there comes along some need that coincides with the public needs but it is the rarity rather than the common cause.

Politicians are good at one thing; lying. The bulk of them do that well and in spades. When you get one saying he's going to address something, hold on to your skepticism and wallet. Most of the time you'll cost you some of both.

Is it any wonder that the majority of the US citizens now believe that government no longer has the consent to govern?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
antiderp, 31 Aug 2011 @ 2:11pm

simpler explanation
I think I have a simpler explanation;

The squeaky wheel (John) is just looking for some additional grease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 11:23pm
  
  Re: simpler explanation
  If I was a mean person I would point out with the loss of income from his wife's position and the kickbacks she was getting, money might be getting tight. Having to live on what you actually earn rather than what you can take can slow down a lifestyle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]