Absolutely. It annoys me no end that record companies regard as criminals anyone who makes a copy of someone else’s copy of, say, It’s Grim Up North by the Jams, when that is in fact the only possible way of obtaining a copy of that record, because the record company won’t let anyone have it. That was fair enough in the days when records had to be hard physical media and so rereleasing them cost a lot of money, but it amazes me that no major record company has yet thought “Hang on! Why don’t we stick all our artists’ entire back-catalogues on the Web for 10p a track?” They’d make gazillions.

The Propellerheads’ second album was ready years ago. Wall Of Sound have never released it; looks like they never will, the selfish gits. I, for one, want to hear it. See also Deep End by Sirenes — the record company even got as far as promoting that one, with the singles having “Taken from the album Deep End” printed on them — and Cooler’s album, which was also finished but never released, and not because the band didn’t want it released.

It’s worth noting here that nobody knows who changed “good morning to all” to “happy birthday”. The changed lyrics first appeared in print in 1924 as an additional verse to “good morning to all”, but it’s unclear whether the credited author actually wrote the words. Doesn’t matter anyway, because he doesn’t have the copyright.

11 years later, a third Hill sister – working with the Summy publishing company – successfully argued that Happy Birthday was ripping off her sisters’ melody. She – or rather, Summy – then got the copyright to someone else’s words. It’s credited as a work for hire (for Summy) by Preston Ware Oram, but it’s very doubtful that Oram wrote the lyrics – they’d been around for 11 years before he put pen to paper and during that time the song as we know it today had been widely performed, even in musicals.

Summy was bought by an accountant in the 30s; Warners bought the resulting firm in 1998. The song generates around two million dollars in royalties every year – none of which go to the person who wrote Happy Birthday, because nobody knows who that person was. It’s believed that the royalties are split between charities and a surviving nephew of the Hill sisters (who, of course, didn’t write the song that’s actually copyrighted).

I’m not suggesting that if the works aren’t exploited then they should immediately fall into the public domain; I’m suggesting that if the exclusive licence isn’t used for a specified period of time, the copyright owner – the creator – can take his or her work elsewhere. They can give it away, they can licence it to someone else, whatever. That way you’re keeping to the “promote” bit of copyright.

Sorry, that should be “as tm says”.

I’d disagree: it certainly does a lot of things that make no sense, such as the insane gap between radio release and retail, but I think it plays a valuable role in bringing acts to our attention. The internet democratisation is nice, but every single one of my favourite acts came via record firms (in some cases, via the manufactured pop route).

What is sad, though, is that outside the indie world there are very few mavericks in charge any more. Which is good news for shareholders but not so good for music lovers.

That said, the record business perpetuates the idea that without them, without money, musicians wouldn’t create. That’s bollocks as ten seconds on MySpace proves.

Back to the copyright thing, though: record companies already enjoy the strongest form of protection in any industry, so while other forms of IP protection expire after 20, 25 years recordings of pop songs are already protected for double that amount and composers’ rights for considerably longer. As david says, nobody’s arguing that the term should be shortened, but the report the labels are currently lobbying about came to the conclusion that there is no compelling case for government to make it longer.

Marx was always against the record industry.

>>as if the fact that the songs are very much loved and popular, to the extent of having generated lots of revenue, means that anybody requiring to be paid properly for making them available is a greedy pig.

Nobody has argued that the artist shouldn’t be paid. If you read the article the point is that extending the copyright on the sound recording means that the record company gets paid – the artist does not necessarily benefit at all. In any case, the artist would get paid for writing the song for their lifetime plus 70 years. Somehow I fail to see how they lose out.

>>Would you prefer those corporations to not exist?

Personally, yes I would. The record industry makes no sense any more. There is reliance on very short-term income but they even manage to scupper that by releasing records to radio that you can’t buy for 6 weeks. I hear a song on the radio that I like, I go into a record shop to buy it and it doesn’t exist. By the time it is released I’ve heard it so many times that I’m sick of it. Good marketing! Then they complain that single sales are down.

>>I have noticed that those who hold rancor toward those who have riches are almost always people who don’t have riches. That’s called “envy,” one of the deadly sins.

The word “duh!” comes to mind. Since you brought it up,Rocky (if that’s your real name!), you will also be familiar with the other sin – Greed. Yes, you’re right. Most people envy the lifestyle of rock and pop artists – but they usually don’t seem to begrudge them their success. Most people, however, do seem to begrudge rich and famous people moaning that they might become a little less rich.

The companies would appear to want us to change the law to make more money for them by default. The article, and others like it, essentially say that they should be making money by doing what they do (bringing songs to market and selling large numbers of them) well and efficiently – that the market will rewards companies who are good at this, and punishes those who are bad at it just fine under the current rules – without any need for further government intervention. Not much communism there now is there?

This earlier post provides some examples of how copyright is out of balance.

-Rock