Canada Extends Copyright Terms, Finally Giving Musicians Who Released Works More Than 50 Years Ago A Reason To Create
from the INCENTIVES! dept
For reasons no more sound than it possibly felt a bit inadequate when comparing copyright term length with its next-door-neighbor, Canada has increased the copyright term for sound recordings and performances from 50 years to 70 years. Supposedly, this will spur on further creative efforts in the future, seeing as the previous copyright term length brought about a creative drought spanning nearly two decades -- one that commenced shortly after the end of World War II.
This move will allow Canada to keep apace of the United States' contributions to the public domain by ratcheting that number closer to the desired "zero." This should also trigger a massive explosion in creation, seeing as many recording artists will now be able to monetarily support their record labels far into their golden years (theirs -- not the record labels'). This will also serve to keep the recordings out of the hands of deadbeats… like libraries… or archivists.
Michael Geist figures the TPP is behind this copyright extension.
The TPP is nearing the end game and the U.S. is still demanding many changes to Canadian copyright law, including copyright term extension for all works (not just sound recordings). The Canadian government’s strategy in recent years has been to enact reforms before the trade agreements are finalized in order to enhance its bargaining position. For example, it moved forward with notice-and-notice rules for Internet providers without the necessary regulations in order to have the system in place and protect it at the TPP talks. It may be trying to do the same here by extending term on sound recordings and hoping that that concession satisfies U.S. copyright demands.This outside pressure would seem to be the prime motivator. It certainly isn't coming from within the country -- not even from the expected cheerleaders of upwardly-mobile copyright terms.
[J]ust last year the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage conducted a major review of the music industry in Canada with dozens of witnesses taking the time to appear or submit briefs. The final report and the government’s response never raise the term of protection for sound recordings and performances as a concern.But Canadian citizens shouldn't get too upset by this wholly expected turn of events. After all, as the head of Music Canada (RIAA, but maple-flavored) points out, an increasingly empty public domain is much better for the public than the alternative.
"With each passing day, Canadian treasures like Universal Soldier by Buffy Sainte-Marie are lost to the public domain. This is not in the public interest. It does not benefit the creator or their investors and it will have an adverse impact on the Canadian economy.”Perhaps this argument could be repurposed for income tax: "Contributing money to public funds is not in the public interest. It does not benefit the guy who wants to keep all that money for himself." The "public interest," apparently, is whatever benefits the labels represented by Music Canada, rather than any other commonly-accepted definition.
Perhaps the worst excuse for this unneeded extension is this: it helps producers and musicians catch up with the positively surreal copyright terms songwriters and composers enjoy.
Songwriters and performing artists both contribute to the success of a recording. In Canada, the copyright in musical works subsists for the life of the songwriter plus 50 years. Performing artists are not treated equally, as their copyrights expire 50 years after the recording is made. Term extension to 70 years after recording or release partially addresses this disparity.The smarter move would be to adjust the lengthier term down, rather than crank the shorter terms up. But once you've handed out this extension to a set of creators, you'll never be allowed to roll it back. The creators may recognize the ridiculousness of this arrangement, but those that benefit the most from extended terms -- the middlemen -- have enough clout to ensure copyright protections constantly expand.
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: canada, copyright, life plus 50, life plus 70, public domain, term extension, terms, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When a work falls into the public domain it is very rarely lost, but when it is kept locked up in a vault it is often lost, as demonstrated by the lack of copies of the old silent movies.
[ 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 ]
Let's do the math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, we know where his biases are. Nothing's "lost" when something goes into the public domain, apart from the original copyright holder's exclusive ability to control it. They can still make money, of course, they just can't prevent anyone else from doing so. They also can't stop them from offering it for free, for reusing and reworking, from creating new versions of the song, reusing parts of the song in other works, and so on. New venues can be found for the work, new audiences who wouldn't normally pay for such a song but might be exposed through royalty free uses, and so on. The work, most importantly, still exists - something not necessarily true for those works created in the same period that are orphaned or considered uncommercial for modern release.
Yet again, the people pretending to help the most are the ones actively harming the most. I wish they'd just come clean and say "we're still making money off some of these things so we have to restrict everything until the gravy train stops". It would still be a negative move for everybody else, but it would at least be honest.
As an aside, I wasn't familiar with the song mentioned (at least not by name), so I did a little searching. the song was not a hit to begin with, but became popular after British singer Donovan made a cover version that became popular in the US. That makes it such a Canadian treasure, that it has to be locked up away from Canadian musicians and other artists for another couple of decades, and maintain the toll for the Candian public to enjoy. While ensuring that orphaned works and other things that would benefit from being in the public domain cannot be enjoyed by the public. Yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But more interesting from a copyright of view is a very obscure remix from 1965 -- just a year after it was released. Jan Berry (of Jan and Dean) rewrote the lyrics and retitled the song as "The Universal Coward" to express his take on it -- which turned out to be pretty much the polar opposite of Sainte-Marie's, and I suppose, a partial reflection of the divisiveness of the Vietnam War. Whether one agrees with his viewpoint or not isn't important: the interesting question is whether or not that could even happen today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (Rich Kulasiec @0528)
If it's still around Dr. Demento did a whole 2 hour show involving answer records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: (Rich Kulasiec @0528)
(Yes, I'm a HUGE Dr. D fan. I even have a picture of myself with him framed in my office!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Rich Kulasiec @0528)
Now we know exactly where they are that we cannot access them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, what they are saying/doing is more like:
"We're still making money of 0.03% of this content, so we have to restrict your access to ALL of it until the gravy train stops."
They are salting the fields. Basically, willing to block access to tremendous amounts of content as collateral damage in their quest for greed-fueled profiteering.
And the irony is the point you made, that this song actually achieved greater fame, profit, joy-delivery, etc. ONLY when derivatives of it were made by Donovan and others. This very song that Music Canada's spokesdouche brought up shows the value of derivative content can often exceed the original.
Also, the public good is not only measured in dollars for the economy. Songs in the public domain can offer $ millions in intangible value (economically called consumer surplus.) Basically, if we enjoy it for free, that is still a good thing, whether it registers in GDP or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An incredibly important point. I would even go so far as to say that "the public good" is not primarily measured in dollars.
I'm well and truly sick of everything being measured in terms of monetary value. Doing so is incredibly distorting, since it makes many truly valuable and important things appear to be without value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT THE HELL?! How is this not in the public interest? The public domain literally has the word 'public' in it! It doesn't get lost in the public domain, it's no longer copy-protected so it can be archived and shared among everyone.
Yes, I know this is all copyright industry BS, but it's so flagrantly BS that it ticks me off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just imagine what will happen to these songs once the mob gets their hand on it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To put it into Rightsholder speak, we've all been cheated of our rightful and well earned inheritance. We gave them a limited monopoly to capitalize on ("monetize" :-P) the work, and they've been handsomely paid for their efforts. Now that limited term is over, it should rightfully belong to all of us; to our cultural heritage. This is theft on a massive scale including everyone alive today and generations to come. We've been robbed, all of us including the yet unborn, and this is just one work we're talking about here.
Grand theft manipulation of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therefore, it is logical that an increase in copyright length will discourage creators from making more content because they get paid for doing nothing.
I realize this is over simplification. In particular, the artist does not receive money in perpetuity, the labels do - and they do not share. But it does point out their silly logic flaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I say "starve the beast". Stop buying label owned music, only buy independent or direct from the musicians themselves. Support the artists through concerts and merchandise. Donate to their fan clubs. But do not spend a dime on label distributed albums or recordings. Do not obtain infringing copies though, just avoid purchasing their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public interest
Also there may be a point in time when archeologists might have to pay licence fees to display something they dug up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright needs reforrm, not extension. Happy Birthday says it all
"Under the laws in effect at the time (1935), that copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday to You" will remain intact until at least 2030."
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp#hHzjYGpWDOgCOESU.99
In reality, the song is much older than 1935. None of the royalties generated from this song go to the person who made this (since it is still unclear who actually did it) and only profits Warner Music Group.
Copyright needs to be completely redone. It a huge cash cow for the music industry, not the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
screw musicans and actors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: screw musicans and actors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline grammar fail
I think you mean "... Who Released Works More Than 50 Years Ago A Reason To Have Created"
I know there's limited space, but please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline grammar fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give 'em life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give 'em life!
Yes, 70 years is ridiculous, but a couple decades doesn't seem unreasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give 'em life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way to negotiate, Canada!
I can imagine these negotiators as parents:
Negotiator: "Get your homework done, son"
Son: "If I do it, can I have a cookie ?"
Negotiator: "You want a cookie? Here you go"
Son: "Thanks! Delicious"
Negotiator: "Now get that homework done!"
Son: "Only if you give me another cookie"
Negotiator: "Sure, here you go! Now, about that homework"
No wonder the USTR expects to always get their own way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://musiccanada.com/news/artists-react-to-proposal-to-extend-the-term-for-copyright-of-sound -recordings-in-canada-to-70-years/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, don't you have to suck off out_of_the_blue or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good to know that musiccanada isn't composed of some big labels which in no way would profit from this
http://musiccanada.com/about/
like Sony, Universal and Warner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hi. I'm returning this exported tyranny, ..."
Signed,
Your disgruntled trading partner."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]