Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
from the but-of-course dept
We've written a few times about how the RIAA has been fighting hard to screw over tons of musicians by taking away their "termination rights." Termination rights are a bit confusing, but the simplest way of thinking about them is that after 35 years, if a copyright holder had assigned the copyright to someone else -- such as a record label -- the artist can simply take them back. There are a few exceptions to this rule, such as in cases where the work was done under a "work for hire" setup. And while many people think they know what "work for hire" means, it has a very specific meaning that most likely does not apply to the many situations you might think it would. It certainly does not apply to music, in part because at the time the law was rewritten, the RIAA didn't have anyone in the room to add that into the document (seriously). Now, I tend to think termination rights don't make much sense, but given that they were a tradeoff for extending copyrights massively, at least it's some very, very minor push back on companies that exploit artists.Still, the recording industry, in particular, hates termination rights. In a somewhat infamous case, which we've written about a few times before, a Congressional staffer named Mitch Glazier snuck four words into a totally unrelated bill (literally) in the middle of the night -- allowing a bill to be passed in 1999 that secretly made sound recordings suddenly qualify as "works made for hire," allowing the RIAA members (the major labels) to deny termination rights to their artists. The addition of those four little words: "as a sound recording" into the "definitions" part of the completely unrelated bill, basically went unnoticed until after the law was passed -- and then suddenly people realized what Glazier had done. There was an outcry from musicians, and Congress actually went back and repealed that section of the law.
Just three months after Glazier put this language into the bill, which everyone admits was suggested to him by the RIAA, he was hired by the RIAA to a job with a half a million dollar salary. He remains at the RIAA to this day, where he's currently the number two guy.
While musicians spoke up and were able to get this part of the bill repealed, it should be abundantly clear that the RIAA and Glazier in particular have always been anti-artist, and are focused on figuring out ways to help the recording industry screw over musicians even more. While he lost the termination rights battle, Sarah Jeong and Parker Higgins, over at EFF, have noticed that in the leaked version of the TPP's IP chapter, there appears to be a hidden attack on termination rights.
It is, of course, notable that one of the few industry insiders who is listed as an adviser to the USTR on the IP chapter -- one of the very small group of people who is both allowed to see the text of the document and to recommend specific language -- just happens to... work for the RIAA. Yup. The last person listed in the group of folks on the USTR's IP advisory committee is Neil Turkeweitz from the RIAA. And of course, doing away with termination rights is of utmost importance to the RIAA right now, because the timing has suddenly become quite relevant. The law went into effect in 1978 -- and 35 years after 1978 is... 2013. Termination rights are now due and the RIAA has been freaking out about them.The section of the TPP labeled QQ.G.9 appears to be a more direct challenge to termination rights. It says:
Each Party shall provide that for copyright and related rights, any person acquiring or holding any economic right in a work, performance, or phonogram: may freely and separately transfer that right by contract; and by virtue of a contract, including contracts of employment underlying the creation of works, performances, and phonograms, shall be able to exercise that right in that person's own name and enjoy fully the benefits derived from that right.
The termination right, of course, is a limit on free transfer. As a result, instead of a narrow attack on the termination rights of musicians by reclassifying their works as “works-for-hire,” the text here could eliminate termination rights for everyone. It is an open question whether QQ.G.9 would actually mandate such a significant change in U.S. law, but it is worth noting that the provision specifically targets “phonograms”—legal jargon for sound recordings. Furthermore, an addition proposed by Chile seems to have been designed to mitigate the possibility of broad scale legal changes, leaving us concerned about the ramifications of the current language.
Would the RIAA slip some language into the TPP to destroy termination rights? It might seem like a conspiracy theory, but after all, they did exactly the same thing in US law 14 years ago, and only had it repealed when artists noticed what they'd done to screw them over.
While the RIAA and MPAA have been strongly supportive of the TPP, perhaps the artists who think that those groups are looking out for their interests should think again about what a terrible deal the TPP would be for their own interests.
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, mitch glazier, neil turkeweitz, termination rights, ustr
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is anyone surprised by this?
Termination rights shouldn't be written into the law, as with any other contract, they should be terminated when one party or the other decides to cancel the contract. If one party to the contract fails to live up to their end of the bargain, then the other party should be allowed to back out of the contract. What should be written into the law is the exceptions to the rule...no contract should ever be allowed to take away rights of either party, nor should it place any unreasonable or unconscionable requirement or restriction on either party (like the one-sided ones the RIAA/MPAA currently use, or ones that prevent one party from cancelling the contract without significant penalty if the other side decides to buy the contract and then fails to sell the work or puts it into a vault and makes it "disappear" because they don't like it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
In this case, it's that the law is changing (nullifying) the rights as opposed to using the rights to transfer around the "property".. It would be akin to passing a law that things you buy only belong to you for 3 years and then legally it belongs to your neighbour (or any other sort of law that actually changes property rights).
That is it would be akin to that if anyone actually truly considered copyright some kind of inherent right like property. Changes to copyright law would probably never, or at least incredibly rarely be considered if that were the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
While a technicality, it has a psychological affect. It's like being in court and repeatedly calling someone a thief before they have been convicted. Judges get mad at you if you do that kind of stuff.
Same thing here. People keep calling it a right, so when others hear it, they assume it is like other rights, when it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
Creative expressions as property is a fiction created in the last thirty years or so by maximalists.
You're not actually suggesting title deeds for copyright, are you? Don't be silly. Films and songs are not the same as houses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
The history of creation of copyright makes it clear that copyright was intended as a way for publishers to maintain control over books. By creating copyright as a transferable right, they created a right they could purchase from authors as a condition of publishing a book. This was a way of replacing the legal monopoly on publishing books that they had previously held so that the state could control what was published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
Good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But somehow we're supposed to believe that democracy and public interest direct our laws. Yeah right.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Monsanto are monsters!
Don't get me started on the poisoning, the patent trolling over seeds...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
Really digs into this if anyone is interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
But anyhoo: copyright should be rolled back to before the whatever treaty extended the times, EXCEPT that the inherent copyright without registering is GOOD, harms no one, and I think that bit just made explicit the prior common law.
So -- hmm. Question keeps coming back: whether Mike opposes ALL of the TPP, or just particular sections? We don't KNOW, do we? -- IF the latter, then Mike is definitely a corporatist, just angling here to stymy enemies of his, er, friends, -- Conspiracy theory, huh? Well, well. Fact is are conspiracies all over, and if Mike doesn't say he's against this TPP monster and its corporate sponsors, that's more evidence than he has against the RIAA.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade' The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congr ess
If you advocate taking copyright away from Disney after its long abuse and extension, then FINE! -- But don't at same time empower today's mega-corporations to steal creative works from the poor. Those are not similar cases. Doing away with ALL copyright is even more criminal than the current mess. -- Make a means test for copyright, prohibit it entirely to corporations, and prevent them from raiding the public domain.
04:09:25[f-82-7]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Simple solution to copyright - make copyright non-transferable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Even better solution, scrap copyright altogether.
At the very least, if they want to treat it like property, they have to pay property tax on it like everyone else, at the tune of 1% of the value per year and then use the money generated solely for funding new works and/or managing the public domain through libraries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Then instead of transferring copyright to the publisher via a contract, the creator would be required to contract that they do not offer the work to a different publisher as part of the publication contract. Different language same result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
For example, a contract can be voided if either party engages in wrongdoing such as fudging books or not paying proper royalties.
Also, it would eliminate the problem of an artist's descendents abusing the copyright they inherit in ways that the artist find abhorrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
A practical modification to copyright would be a sunset clause that removes it from works that are no longer available as new copies from an authorised, (by the publisher or artist) source. Note, new copies is also qualified as being in the usual format, and at the normal price for the type of work, so that copyright cannot be maintained by a ridiculous expensive version that nobody can afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Perhaps you should get off your lazy ass and write your own blog instead of complaining that other people aren't doing enough of your complaining for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Wrong, Blue. It harms our society by creating a permission culture. If copyright required registration then we would know exactly which works artists could build off of prior to spending the time and energy, instead of after the fact when they get sued. I personally believe that the extra work needed by an artist to register a copyright is a very small tradeoff for the exclusivity that is gained.
... and I think that bit just made explicit the prior common law.
Except for the fact that copyright isn't based on common law, which has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
oh, so a blog dedicated to certain issues is only focusing on the parts of a trade deal relevant to said issues? omg Mike is literally Stalin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
stupid artists........don't they know that when people get sued for downloading their songs without paying for them the person is just doing what people have done since the beginning of time.......Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can we not use the collateral damage argument for this, please? It doesn't serve a greater good and the artists aren't the ones who benefit.
I've already told you, artists earn more from performing than from royalties anyway. Besides, you have to be hugely popular in the first place for earnings from royalties to amount to much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What AC is talking about is the sharing of culture. "Ownership" of music and stories is relatively new concept in human history. Ancient societies passed stories and music freely amongst each other. It's how new things were learned and histories were passed from generation to generation.
For example, in the Middle Ages we had wandering minstrels:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Recording process is relatively new. The recording process has forever changed music. A recording transforms song from a mere idea. The performance of that idea is captured as a moment in time unique to that individual and that instills it with worth as a tangible asset. One does not buy a Billy Joel record to hear someone sing one of his songs. One buys a Billy Joel record to hear his infinitely unique voice. One buys Billy Joel's performance of his song. Any minstrel can sing a Billy Joel song but I would think a Billy Joel fan will tell you it is not quite the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
self publish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: self publish
That artists will take back THEIR copyright and self publish.
Probably for a lower price point than the label had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: self publish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not so simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so simple solution
Think of the poor (con)artists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait..what?
This guy should be in jail not in a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait..what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
had these stupid idiots listened to what they were being told years ago, rather than this continuous 'the RIAA are on our side. they wont do anything to hurt us', they would have known what was going to happen. the people, the customers, are the ones that care about artists and about the music. all the RIAA and other labels and studios care about is how to get the maximum profit, pay the least in returns and how to screw the artists for longer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Termination Rights update?
Could you do an update on the termination rights issue and progress? Have many of the artists now started to recapture their work or is it all tied up in court?
Have artists begun to release new versions of the work now that they hold the rights?
Your linked article was from 2011, I've seen some limited writing on the topic, but nothing that is very recent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So fuck you Masnick, you slimy weasel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just for my own morbid curiosity, if Google went bankrupt tomorrow, who would be the next scapegoat for your failure to monetize your works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ooh, I know the answer to that one
He's still mad about loosing his "city" and "Google" is the closest replacement, although why he's not blaming Yahoo for the whole thing is still beyond me.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ooh, I know the answer to that one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think this is actually either Lowery or one of his cohorts really. Probably upset that the viewership on that silly Trichordist site has dropped next to nothing. He, of course, blames everyone else for that too, since it couldn't possibly be because he cherry-picks facts or commits lies of omission or that he doesn't allow any dissenting comments into his echo chamber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You bought the DMCA, now you lie in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignoring the fact that you're an idiot, if Google doing it's job as a SEARCH ENGINE (hint: not a filter), is supposedly robbing the artists of their money, then so is Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, and every other search engine in existence.
Admit it AC, you don't hate Google, what you really hate is the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a DJ
Anybody else ? Sing for the music, Its my life, we are one? Anybody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]