Library Of Congress Hoping To Cut Through Tangled Copyright Laws In Order To Archive Historic Sound Recordings
from the good-luck-with-that dept
The copyright laws governing sound recordings are a mess, especially here in the US. The steady march of copyright protection towards perpetuity hasn't helped, extending protection on original recordings to the point where archiving decaying media is generally perceived to border on impossible.
In Europe, sound recordings enter the public domain 50 years after their initial release. Once that happens, anyone can reissue them, which makes it easy for Europeans to purchase classic records of the past. In America, by contrast, sound recordings are "protected" by a prohibitive snarl of federal and state legislation whose effect was summed up in a report issued in 2010 by the National Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress: "The effective term of copyright protection for even the oldest U.S. recordings, dating from the late 19th century, will not end until the year 2067 at the earliest.… Thus, a published U.S. sound recording created in 1890 will not enter the public domain until 177 years after its creation, constituting a term of rights protection 82 years longer than that of all other forms of audio visual works made for hire."We've discussed this problem here before. For instance, an entire library of 1930's jazz recordings is locked up at the National Jazz Museum, available for listening by "appointment only." While it's being archived in an effort to preserve it, the recordings themselves cannot be accessed otherwise by the general public. Other works aren't even that lucky. Historic audio recordings are degrading and disappearing, but the twisted maze of copyright laws governing these recordings has thwarted archival efforts. The Library of Congress, our nation's largest archive, is hoping to prevent this from happening. Following up on its study on sound recording preservation from 2010, the Library has narrowed down the aspects of American copyright law that will need to change if this national archival plan is to become a reality.
As part of its preservation plan for sound recording, the Library of Congress has made three common-sense recommendations for copyright reform:Bringing all recordings under federal law will (unbelievably) result in more of these works becoming public domain. A tangle of ancient state laws is to blame for the 177-year waiting period, although several legislative extensions of copyright length hasn't helped.
• "Bring sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, under federal copyright law."
• "Enable recordings whose copyright owners cannot be identified or located to be more readily preserved and accessed legally."
• "Revise section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 in order to facilitate preservation and expand public access to sound recordings."
A call for archiving of orphan works is rarely greeted with enthusiasm by proponents of the copyright industry -- unless its their idea, in which case they're more than willing to go right ahead and monetize unclaimed creations. But the moment anyone starts talking about "archiving" these works, hackles get raised and the word "exploitation" starts getting thrown around. So, that's another hurdle the Library of Congress will have to leap.
Finally, Section 108 is in desperate need of revision. Its current wording limits access to any digital copies to "library premises," making uploading these to a publicly accessible website infringement. This limitation ignores the reality of a digitally connected world and limits access to this sort of archive solely to those who can visit the actual "premises."
Despite the importance of this work, it seems unlikely this will get off the ground anytime soon, if it happens at all. As the Wall Street Journal articles points out, given the current state of our economy (among other things), it's hard to believe the administration will make this a priority.
Beyond that, there's nothing in it for the copyright industry. As the laws stand now, it can control these works for well over one hundred years, even if "controlling" the catalog means little more than simply preventing others from releasing these works, either commercially or non-commercially. In these cases, copyright "protection" feels more like "protectionism," allowing the incumbents to maintain the status quo with a minimum of expense or effort. And if there's one thing incumbents like, it's more of the same, something the Library of Congress' plans would alter.
It's a fight worth fighting but it's highly doubtful the Library will find the allies it needs at this point. But one wonders why this fight even needs to be a fight? After all, as the article points out, books lapse into the public domain all the time and as they do, new publishers craft new copies, thus ensuring the work simply doesn't degrade and disappear. Copyright protection that extends far past the vanishing point is only hurting our cultural history. The recording industry may be concerned about preserving its legacy, but every move its made up to this point has been entirely about self-preservation. Hopefully an effort like this will be greeted with enthusiasm rather than reticence by the rights holders.
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, librarian of congress, sound recordings
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
Anyhoo, as last time: if copyright keeps JAZZ locked up until we're all dead, that's enough positive to make me re-consider these length of terms as too short.
You'd do better trying to rein in CURRENT "industry" on prices and obscene levels of returns. I understand that even epics like "Star Wars" still haven't made a profit, and if you'd pitch your screeds to Populist anger over such obvious cheating, you'd do better than with this dry technical stuff over antiques.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
in the previous 'teens, but most vintage stuff is FINE if kept locked up -- almost no one living today can stand it, actually. (Henry Lauder was a famous singing and joking Scotchman, back when seeing a real live kilt-wearing Scots in America was a novelty. Sort of the performing monkey of the day.)
Anyhoo, as last time: if copyright keeps JAZZ locked up until we're all dead, that's enough positive to make me re-consider these length of terms as too short.
You'd do better trying to rein in CURRENT "industry" on prices and obscene levels of returns. I understand that even epics like WHAT THE FU## IS THIS anger over such obvious cheating, you'd do better than with this dry technical stuff over antiques
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
"I don't like something so no one else should get to."
"Hand-waving. Focus on recent things so that old stuff can be left to die so we don't have to worry about it being liberated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
I will have you know, sonny jim, that there is no finer music than 1920s and 30s Jazz, Swing and Blues. I will take that over the diarrhea spewed forth by major record labels any day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
So...because you personally don't like jazz that means its fine that it gets locked up, away from everyone else? Talk about a big ego. Hopefully you are aware that there are other people who exist on this planet (or maybe the reason your ramblings are so insane is that you believe you are the only person on this planet, the sole centre of existence, and everyone else is just a figment of your imagination, thus you don't have to worry one iota about what they might want or need).
The point of copyright, as originally established, was to create works of art and science. Here, we have works of art, musical recordings, that are being physically degraded. No-one wants to try and copy them, back them up, because doing so is a crime that merits burning on a cross (its not enough that you're nailed onto the cross, you have to burn to). Once the works degrade enough...they're gone. Forever. There will be no way of bringing them back.
And you're OK with that? That important works of art will be gone literally forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure we all enjoyed Henry Lauder singing "Loch Lomond",
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Museums do it all the time, and some enthusiasts do magnificent work restoring old cars. see London to Brighton car run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also don't think it would help for a national library to become a pit of corruption. So leave that for the real parasites in Congress and the Administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Library of Congress ought to be immune to copyright lawsuits
And this ancient state copyright stuff ought to be done away with. I don't think *anyone* (Patry included) *really* understands it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
Yes the US system on audio copyright is a total mess where the EU running a fixed 50 year limit is blissful by comparison.
US copyright always depresses me when at a young age you can see something new out, along with obtaining ideas how to make it much better, but you would be long dead before it ever hits the public domain to be able to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While they can waste time debating copyright lengths and orphan works as long as they damn well want, just cut out a clear role. You will archive every damn thing to preserve it, and nothing can stop you from doing that important work.
It attempts to stop the world from losing things forever while corporations scream that they should have 3000 years to extract every cent from the material. If the LoC can't be allowed to preserve items submitted to it, it isn't a library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
long-term fix: shorten copyright terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cliff's Law
That was the case until Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Paul McCartney, Bono and other impoverished artists struggling in garrets across Europe realised that they could no longer sit on their arses and collect fees for something they did 50 years ago, unlike nearly everyone else who has to work for a living. So it's now 70 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cliff's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
50 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 50 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 50 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 50 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]