Copyrights in the Music Industry: Exclusive Legal Rights - Assignment Example

Song’s Copyright al Affiliation) Introduction Copyrights are exclusive legal rights given to an originator or a delegatee of artistic work. They can be rights to print, perform, publish, and record literacy, or film artistic work and authorization of the same to others. Copyrights and licensing often lead to legal battles and payment of expensive damages. Experienced and knowledgeable experts are also affected, because there is some complexity ascribed to the issue of copyrights. When an individual plans to produce media, it is important to carry out research to address issues related to copyrights. Defending copyrights issues in courts is expensive and ignorance on copyrights should never be an option. For musicians, copyrights are designed to protect their songs from unauthorized reproduction or copying of the work (Atkinson, 2011). Consumers can purchase songs for use in their homes only. When they want to use certain songs for public performance or advertising, they need to gain the rights to do so. To gain the rights, consumers can enter into rights-managed contracts, where they pay royalties based on the number of times they want to use a particular song or several songs. The payable royalty fee is also determined by the number of people who will hear it and the location in which will be played (Berne, 1975). Discussion Copyrights laws in Canada extend to both the nationals of Canada and foreign nationals. The foreign nationals are limited to the members of Berne conventional countries. Substantial amendments were made in Canada to the copyright Act in 2012. The amendments were aimed at modernization of the Canadian copyright law. The United states also have their copyrights laws which have several similarities and differences with the Canadian copyrights laws. Both countries confer protection to artistic work based on the concept of originality (Bogsch, 1986). The Canadian Act recognizes artistic works, musical, dramatic, and original literacy. The U.S Act protects and recognizes ‘works of authorship’ as a general name for artistic works. There are no requirements for registration of copyright in Canada. The registration confers particular presumptive benefits in the country. Lack of copyright registration in the U.S limits some available remedies. Canada prohibits the sale and use of technological designs to circumvent protection measures technological wise. In the U.S the law on technological designs is similar to the one in Canada (Buckingam, 1836). Internet service providers are protected by the Canadian copyrights Act. They are protected when they are only acting as middle men in provision of internet operations services. Canada recognizes a copyright duration as the author’s lifetime plus fifty years. U.S recognizes the duration as the author’s lifetime plus seventy years (Boorstyn, 1981). In the U.S. the artistic works can be made for hire, while the Canadian Act does not recognize such. Moral rights are conferred to all protected works by the Canadian copyrights Act. The U.S. recognizes moral rights in the form of visual artists only. Works produced by government employees in the line of duty are subject to copyright protection in Canada. When a copyright is co-owned, the interests of the co-owners may be assigned without the consent of other co-owners in a joint authorship agreement (Derenberg, 1964). In Canada, a licensee is entitled expressly to commence proceedings to enforce rights in their own name. The licensee can receive remedies in respect of the proceedings under the Act. In Canada, the concept of fair dealing is limited to purposes of research, studies which are private, criticism, reporting of news, education, satire and parody. Elvis Presley released a song, anyplace is paradise, in the year nineteen fifty six. The name of the album containing the song was called ‘Elvis’. The song was owned by RCA record. The record label was later bought by BMG in late 1980s. Sony merged with BMG in 2004 to form a joint venture named Sony BMG (Gorman, 2006). Elvis never had any ownership in RCA recordings. He received royalties on the song’s record sales. This was as per the agreement between him and the record company. In 1973, Elvis together with his manager went to the recording company and requested that he paid a large lump sum. This payment was in respect of future royalties for the sales of the song that were going on at that moment. This payment was discontinued under unclear circumstances. When the time for the rights of particular artistic works passes, the rights are lost. The song was created before 1989 when the U.S. was not yet a member of the Berne convention. When artistic works entered the public domain, the copyright protection expired. Before 1989, Elvis’ song was entitled to protection, but it was difficult to determine the duration of the rights of his song. This was due to complexity of rules that governed the copyrights. The song was available on the internet. Copyright violation on the internet was easy to undertake. Simple acts like viewing the webpage of the song can be a copyright violation act. It is hard to trace such persons because the internet is widespread (Nimmer, 1963). This makes it hard for payment of artists from people who acquire the song from the internet. Consumers of copyrighted works consumer is viewed as a passive consumer of entertainment commodities. The consumer of copyrighted works is no different from the consumer of other products. The consumers are interested in accessing the copyrighted works at affordable costs (Kaplan’ 1960). Copyrights law make sure that there are artistic works that are available for the consumers. It does so by issuing entitlements to authors. The authors in return will have enough incentives for the production of consumable works (Ladas, 1938). The law then satisfies the consumer’s preferences by permitting direct investments to the market. The copyright law protects the consumer by viewing the consumer as an author of artistic works. This comes from the notion that authors also use earlier works for the development of their own works. This means that no work is uniquely new and every author is a consumer of some earlier copyrighted work. The law also views the consumers as active. This means that consumers intend to not only passively consume the works of an author, but to also do more with the copyrighted works. Some copyright doctrines also recognizes the active notion of a consumer (Nimmer, 1979). Rights holders need to be paid for their respective works. When a song is commercially produced, any one that covers the song must pay mechanical royalty rate. The author should modify the rights associated with reproduction whenever a tricky situation that will deny them payment arises. An author needs to be given the sole right to grant permission for creation of derivative work. Rules governing the display aspect of copyrights need to be enforced. Online display rights used for advertising need to be granted by the author of a song to ensure that they benefit on the same. The rights to distribute and transform the artistic works online should be granted by an author of artistic works to be used (Ricketson, 1987). Updating copyrights law has posed major challenges in ensuring that holders of rights receive income from their artistic works. Rights holders try to reach out to the world for advertising their products. This gives the world access to their works and to their personal information (Ringer, 1965). This possess risks to the works of rights holders as they can be accessed and duplicated. The internet is used as a reference source by many users. Copyrights laws relating to the internet are obsolete. This causes a harmful effect between technology and creativity. Different traffics do not receive equal and fair treatment from policy makers (Wincor, 2000). Such inequality makes it hard to ensure that rights holders benefit from their works. Internet security should be strengthened as it makes it easy for consumers to access the works of artists. For example, one can easily download music and burn it to a cd without having to go through major security checks. Conclusion Actions of companies that copyright the works of an artist are causing damage to civil liberties. Copyrights in the music industry limit availability of certain products such as software that helps in CD ‘burning’. Such limitations are unfair because it is important for computer users to back their data in CDs. Closing down of sites that provide the platform for music download is harmful to civil liberties (Vavor, 2000). This is because some artists are unable to afford the costs of recording companies and the only way they can have their music to the market is through such sites. It is important to keep the concerns of consumers in mind when formulating copyrights laws. Duplication of artistic material is easy to undertake especially when involving technology especially computers and internet. Content creators need to understand the copyrights law that governs their works (Stim, 2000). Such understanding assists them in income generation through their artistic works. The rights holders need to be paid and obsolete rules and laws need to be reviewed for proper protection of artistic works. There are many challenges facing the copyrights law. The challenges need to be addressed and there should be effective amendments to such laws, which will ensure that content creators benefit from their work. References Atkinson, B. A. (2011). Copyright law. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate. Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works: texts.. (1975). Geneva?: World Intellectual Property Organization. Bogsch, A. (1986). The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, from 1886 to 1986. Geneva: International Bureau of Intellectual Property. Boorstyn, N. (1981). Copyright law. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co. ;. Buckingham, J. S. (1836). Copyright law. London: Manning and Smithson. Derenberg, W. J. (1964). Copyright law. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. Gorman, R. A. (2006). Copyright law (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center :. Guide to the Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works (Paris act, 1971). (1978). Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. Howell, H. A. (1946). Copyrights. Chicago: American Bar Association, Section of Legal Education ;. Howell, H. A., & Latman, A. (1962). Copyright law (Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed.). Washington: BNA. Joyce, C. (2006). Copyright law (7th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Kaplan, B., & Brown, R. S. (1960). Cases on copyright, unfair competition, and other topics bearing on the protection of literary, musical, and artistic works,. Brooklyn: Foundation Press. Ladas, S. P. (1938). The international protection of literary and artistic property. New York: Macmillan. List of Canadian copyrights (musical compositions). (1899). S.l.: s.n.. Nimmer, M. B. (1963). Nimmer on copyright; a treatise on the law of literary, musical and artistic property, and the protection of ideas.. Albany: M. Bender. Nimmer, M. B. (1979). Cases and materials on copyright and other aspects of law pertaining to literary, musical, and artistic works (2nd ed.). St. Paul: West Pub. Co.. Ricketson, S. (1987). The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886-1986. London: Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College :. Ringer, B. A., & Gitlin, P. (1965). Copyrights, (Rev. ed.). New York: Practising Law Institute. Stim, R. (2000). Copyright law. Albany, N.Y.: West Legal Studies. Vaver, D. (2000). Copyright law. Toronto, Ont.: Irwin Law. Wincor, R. (2000). Dealing with copyrights. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications. Read More