Taking Back 'Funkytown': Songwriters Prepare For A Custody Battle; NPR's All Things Considered, 9/12/13

Joel Rose; NPR's All Things Considered Taking Back 'Funkytown': Songwriters Prepare For A Custody Battle: "When Congress revised U.S. copyright law in the 1970s, it granted "termination rights" to musicians and other creators, which allow them to regain control of their works after 35 years. (The law only applies to sound recordings released in 1978 or after.) Abdo says reclaiming ownership of "Funkytown" would allow his client to earn more in licensing fees and other revenues — exactly as Congress intended. "If you have a big hit or several big hits, then all of a sudden the deal that you made early in your career doesn't seem quite fair because it was very lopsided," Abdo says. "It gives the author a chance to get a second bite at the apple."... [O]ne big hurdle artists face is the question of whether a sound recording is a "work for hire." Since the 1970s, many labels have insisted on contract language that seems to define artists as employees of the label, Slotnick says."

Don Henley Urges Artists to Know Their Rights; New York Times, 8/16/11

Larry Rohter, New York Times; Don Henley Urges Artists to Know Their Rights:

"Q.[Larry Rohter] You and Sheryl Crow went to Washington back in 1999 and 2000 and convinced Congress to undo language classifying sound recordings as “works for hire,” which had just been inserted stealthily into another, unrelated bill. Back then, were you already looking ahead to today, when artists would have the right to reclaim ownership of their recordings, at the expense of record labels?

A. [Don Henley] The termination issue was certainly part of it. We were concerned with a lot of issues in recording contracts that we considered to be unfair, and this was one of the most glaring. We knew that 2013 was going to be a deadline, and that recordings from 1978 would be the first battle. But let’s go back and talk about the history of work for hire for a minute. “Work for hire” was never intended to apply to sound recordings. That came about because of movies and books. Sound recordings somehow got added to the list, then taken off again."

Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights; New York Times, 8/15/11

Larry Rohter, New York Times; Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights:

"Congress passed the copyright law in 1976, specifying that it would go into effect on Jan. 1, 1978, meaning that the earliest any recording can be reclaimed is Jan. 1, 2013. But artists must file termination notices at least two years before the date they want to recoup their work, and once a song or recording qualifies for termination, its authors have five years in which to file a claim; if they fail to act in that time, their right to reclaim the work lapses."

Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal; New York Times, 7/1/09

Eric Pfanner via New York Times; Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal:

"Global Gaming Factory, a publicly traded company based in Stockholm, said it would pay 60 million Swedish kronor, or $7.75 million, for the [Pirate Bay] site and hoped to turn it into a legal source of free music, movies and other content, using a novel, untested business model.

It would be a radical change. The Pirate Bay, with its Jolly Roger logo, has been the music and movie industries’ most prominent target in the battle against illegal file-sharing. To keep content free but appease content owners, Global Gaming Factory wants to generate revenue from a new, ultra-fast file-sharing system that uses networks of computers to help move large digital files.

Mr. Pandeya said the network could be used to ease the strain on Internet service providers, which have complained that file-sharing traffic is clogging up their networks. He envisions charging Internet service providers. The Pirate Bay could also generate revenue from advertising, he said.

Some of the proceeds would be returned to copyright owners, he said, while participants who agreed to allow the use of their computers to help share files would also be paid...

Recording companies, however, have grown more flexible about the kinds of businesses they are willing to license. The Universal Music Group, for instance, recently announced an agreement with a British Internet service provider, Virgin Media, to make available unlimited downloads of music for a monthly fee, with no copyright protection...

But [Mr. Pandeya] said the company had no intention of violating copyrights. “It has to be legal from Day 1,” he said. “We are on the stock market; we can’t start playing games.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=pirate%20bay&st=cse

Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs; Associated Press, 6/15/09

Steve Karnowski via Associated Press; Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs:

"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.

Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.

This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.

The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0

Research Shows Students View Music Piracy as Socially Acceptable - Idaho Examiner, 9/14/08

Research Shows Students View Music Piracy as Socially Acceptable:
"[University of Idaho researcher Darryl] Woolley said that piracy may not be perceived as an “immoral behavior” for students. They may not see it as unethical because they have no first-hand knowledge of prosecutions for piracy, and they may try to rationalize it because of financial situations. “They also view recording labels negatively and think that it does not hurt the recording artist,” he said."
http://www.idahoexaminer.com/reports/10057/research-shows-students-view-music-piracy-as-socially-acceptable