Record Industry vs. Artists Over Song Rights

Bit of a long article from the NYT, but really a good read on the record companies getting ready to have to fight with artists over copyrighting.

The short version goes something like this:

- From the beginning, copyright law has favored record companies vs. artists. Basically because it considered artists employees of the record company and thus anything they created belonged to the company and not the artist.

- This has allowed record companies to make billions more than the artists that actually create the material.

- The law was overturned in the mid-70s but gave record companies 35 years of something like exclusive rights to material. Starting in 1978.

- After those 35 years artists can apply and maybe regain the rights to their material and re-release or do whatever they want with them to earn back some of the revenue to themselves.

- 35 years is up for the 1978 material in 2013, but artists must apply two years in advance (i.e., now). Meaning there are likely to be fights soon over some Springsteen, some Steve Miller Band, some Eagles, some Doobie Brotes, etc.

- This will be another blow to record company revenue (in addition to digital music, youtube, etc.; all of which we know nothing about)

- The record companies are supposedly going to continue fighting the "employee" angle.

- Just look at Springsteen one more time there. Does that look like anyone's employee to you?

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. What do you guys think? I tend to always side with the musicians - do we have any corporate sympathizers reading? If so, let's tango.