Amoeba Records Deals With Orphan Works By Pretending It Can Just Digitize & Sell Now, But Pay Later
from the not-quite-how-it-works dept
Glenn Fleishman has a typically fantastic post over at BoingBoing in which he discusses how the famed Amoeba Records chain has launched Vinyl Vaults, an online store for digitized music from vinyl records, available exclusively via the store. Amoeba, for those who don't know, is something of a mecca for music fans. I used to spend hours there buying CDs... until Amazon, CDBaby and the like just made it much easier for me to buy CDs (and eventually MP3s) online. I had no idea, but apparently Amoeba spent six years and $11 million building this online store. That seems like an awful lot. But here's the thing: it appears that the store is basically one giant case of copyright infringement, as Fleishman describes in detail.Basically, Amoeba decided that if it couldn't find the copyright holder, it would just hold money for them in escrow, and be willing to hand it over should they ever come calling. And, while this might seem like a viable plan in a world that made some sense, it's not what the law allows. At all. Fleishman explores all of the legal nuances (including the fun stuff about how pre-1972 sound recordings are under wacky state copyright laws that have different rules, and won't go into the public domain for much longer than other works). Here's a snippet of the piece:
Where does this leave Amoeba? It seems to be standing on the notion that orphaned works are up for grabs so long as you pay out the owners' cut later when it's claimed. Orphaned works are creations for which no clear knowledge of ownership exists. But there's no provision in U.S. law for how to deal with orphaned works of any kind, music or otherwise. A proposal from 2006 was languishing at the Copyright Office, as it requires Congress to take it up (ha) to establish a clear procedure in law.Go read the whole thing. It's yet another example of how copyright law makes no sense to most people.
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: copyright, digital, orphan works, vinyl
Companies: amoeba records
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
who sues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who sues?
Think about submarine patents for a few minutes, and I'm sure you could come up with a viable scenario here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who sues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who sues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: who sues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who sues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who sues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no such thing as an "orphaned" work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no such thing as an "orphaned" work.
The RIAA is made up of member copyright maximalist gatekeepers.
What is possible is a free for all fight amongst the RIAA member companies all claiming to own the abandoned copyright and represent the bestest interest of the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no such thing as an "orphaned" work.
How are they able to use the "we're saving the poor ripped off artists" excuse is above me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kudos to Amoeba
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
I like what Amoeba is doing and wish them the best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confused
I know. I saw the excerpt below and thought, "Why is attention being brought to this? Let it continue to slide under the radar." I'd rather not see Amoeba being turned into a martyr in order to draw attention to copyright law.
Vinyl Vault lights fuse on copyright time bomb�but is it armed? - Boing Boing: "There's a problem here. There's no such provision in copyright law for such an exemption, and Amoeba could find itself in real trouble, no matter its goodwill and above-board behavior. This doesn't mean that current copyright law is reasonable on this score; it is not. Rather, that it's fairly clear that what Amoeba is doing isn't permitted.
"There's no active copyright police trolling for violations: rightsholders would have to discover Amoeba's work and decide to act, whether to claim escrow fees or file suit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confused
Like I said, I would like Amoeba continue to quietly do their thing; articles highlighting their "illegal" activity isn't helpful in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confused
I though the same with mp3.com (I spent quite a bit there on independent music before the RIAA sued them out of existence.) Yet, if they did one thing, it was to convince the RIAA that there was money to be made in selling MP3s online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confused
I suppose, but I'd rather see people find workaround solutions now rather than spending so much energy arguing for or against changing copyright laws. That will take forever and seems like a poor use of resources. YouTube exists because Google offered rights holders a cut of advertising money. It went ahead and did want it wanted and figured out how to work in a grey area.
Seems like Amoeba is doing the same thing, finding a workaround.
An article saying that they are "pretending" seems to be highlighting them intentionally, perhaps to invite lawsuits against them. Like I said, perhaps someone wants to make them a martyr for a cause. Or stop them from offering to pay rights holders they haven't be able to track down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think of the children
"Hey, kid. You don't seem to have parents, but we aren't 100% sure on that fact. Instead we are just going to lock you in a closet and and not feed, bathe, or attend to you and if no one comes to claim you by 70 years after your death then we will let someone adopt you! Good luck!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They may have set a precedent that Amoeba could point to if they were sued by those companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They managed to walk away not paying the penalties for infringement why should this place be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]