Recently, the music industry has seen a wave of catalog purchases. The value of musical intellectual property, namely copyrights, has increased with the transfer of the industry toward streaming. An example of this trend is Bruce Springsteen sale of his songwriting catalog to Sony for $550 million. This follows similar sales (Bob Dylan, $400 million, Neil Young – $150 million, David bowie – $250 million, etc.) Traditionally, compositions have returned to their creators after a period of time or they have become publicly available after an extended timeframe. Unlike trademarks, which remain with a company for perpetuity, artistic works are not only the expression of the individual who created them, but an expression of the human experience. Take Beethoven for example. If he were alive after the creation of the Berne convention his works would fall under this legal doctrine. Therefore, he and his heirs (assuming he did have children) would be financially rewarded for his artistic creation. After his death and seventy years transpires, his intellectual property would be publicly available without compensation reverting to the creator or their heirs. At this point the work not only would represent Beethoven’s opus, but would be representative of the German music heritage, the European artistic patrimony and an example of human artistic expression. We have all benefited from countless individuals’ innovation and creative expressions. Just look at the concert halls, museums and universities/conservatories that use public domain works.
What many writers and scholars are discussing is the consequences of the rapid purchasing of catalogs and the effects of the structure of copyrights. For organizations, such as entertainment corporations and private equity firms, music’s value is not in the creative nature or beauty of the work, but in its fungibility akin to assets such as minerals (gold, silver, etc.) and commodities (petroleum). Many authors have pointed out that the very perpetual nature of companies (unlike humans who have a use by date) warrants the perpetual use of resources to meet corporate goals. Paul Keller in his blog, the Open Future, questions the possible motives of organizations vis-à-vis the limitation associated with copyrights. Keller notes, that if more copyrights become detached “the connection between a creator’s legacy and the power to exercise copyright becomes very brittle.” In other words, disengaging Beethoven from his works would make music a commodity that could be licensed and sold for an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. This concept is reinforced by online companies need for content and licensing generation.
We need not look to the distant past to see how large corporations can influence government agencies in co opting legislation to meet their intended goals. Walt Disney’s first animated film “Steamboat Willie” was created in 1928. Under the copyright act of that time, the work would have moved to the public domain in 1984. Under intense lobbying from Disney Congress reformed the terms of copyright through the Copyright Act of 1976. From the original term of 28 years with the option to renew for another 28 years to the author’s life, the new legislation extended the term to life of author plus 50 years, or 75 years for works owned by corporations. In the case of Disney, this pushed copyright protection of Mickey Mouse to 2003. By 1998 the deadline for Disney’s creation was about to transpire and again the company began to lobby Congress for copyright reform. As before Disney was successful in their attempts to change the length intellectual property legislation. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (also known deridingly as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) extended copyright protection to an author’s lifetime plus 70 years, or for corporations 95 years from original publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. This means, that Steamboat Willie will be protected until January 1, 2024.
With this date only two years away and the rapid purchasing of copyright material from artists, will we be witness to changes again in copyright? Given the move of ownership of artistic works away from creators to corporations, the possible move toward perpetual copyrights may be a possibility.
The Analytical Musician 