BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM: RENEWAL RIGHTS APPROPRIATION

WHAT IS A RENEWAL RIGHT?

In copyright law, a RENEWAL right is an additional, second, period of rights for created works, such as a song or a novel. This was included in the law so that after a certain time songwriters and other authors could get back the rights to whatever creation they assigned to a publisher. For example, works, such as a song had many years of copyright protection. Then if the renewal of the copyright was made an additional period of copyright protection was created.

PURPOSE OF RENEWAL RIGHTS

The purpose of renewal rights was to protect the creators from unscrupulous or ineffective publishers who, after acquiring the author's work, did nothing or little with them and then told the author that they could not get the rights back. For example, sometimes the publisher would go broke or disappeared and the author could not do anything to get the rights back. Briefly, the purpose was to have a provision in the laws whereby works assigned to publishers would revert to the author in the renewal rights period. Back in the early part of the 20th. century the periods of copyright was 14 years each. An author had to wait 14 years to get the rights back. Later on the law was changed to 28 years for each period. More recently, in 1976, renewal rights were eliminated as was requested to congress by the publishers.

MUSIC PUBLISHER TRICKS AND ABUSE OF THE LAW

But publishers frustrated the law and got authors to sign contracts that assigned the renewal rights to the publisher when a work was assigned initially, in exchange for nothin. This was illegal because the renewal rights could not be be simply given away because some royalties were being received in advance. Renewal rights were only an expectant right and as such they could be sold. This is what a publisher would tell a fooled songwriter, for example in their songwriter agreements:

a. You get an advance payment for the song. This sounded very good to the songwriter, who was usually broke or needed the money and/or wanted his/her songs heard and thought, erroneously, that a publisher was the golden gate to get there. That is what publishers told songwriters anyway, just as they do today.

b. You assign the song to us. You also assign to us the renewal rights which will arive in 28 years. If you want the front money, a royalty payment advance, you must assign us all your rights, including the renewal rights. The songwriter was never told that this only had the purpose of defeating or frustating the law, that a songwriter could not assign his/her renewal rights, in exchange for nothing that was negotiated separately of the assignment that was for the purpose of getting a publisher to manage the song for the benefit of the songwriter. Most songwriters and their heir swallowed the line from the publisher or the publisher's lawyer.

c. You will give us a power of attorney. With that that we can sign your name to transfer the renewal rights to us when that time arrives. Forget that the law requires your own signature. We will ignore that part of the law.

A note here: A Supreme court decision of 1943 (FISHER MUSIC CO. v. M. WITMARK) stated that the assignment of renewal rights was legal, for consideration. That is, the rights of renewal could be sold but not merely given away in exchange for nothing as was commonly required by music publisher.

THE LEGAL METHOD OF ASSIGNING RENEWAL RIGHTS

If a songwriter or an author wanted to assign renewal rights to a publisher it could only be sold. The assignment could be to any person or publisher that the author selected. Of course the author can simply retain the rights for him/herself. The assignment must also comply with this requirement in the law:

§ 205. Recordation of transfers and other documents

(a) Conditions for Recordation. — Any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document.

Our research shows that many songs have been transferred through assignments recorded without the actual signature of the author and actually signed by an employee of the publisher. See below: BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL TIME.

A little detail: In the other publishing industries (book, movies, audio visual, etc.), author's renewal rights are more (if not always) respected. Is this because other (non song) authors are better prepared (they are scientists, lawyers, novelists, educators, movie producers, etc.) and less susceptible to be taken advantage of? Or maybe music publishers are more greedy than book and other publishers? The same thing ocurs with other abused songwriter rights but that is not part of this subject.

RENEWAL RIGHTS TODAY

Renewal rights were eliminated from the copyright law in 1976, when it became clear that the publisher tricks to get renewal rights were no longer working for new acquisitions and when congress sold out to the copyright industry interests. Today if a song is assigned to a publisher, it is for the entire duration of the copyright protection period of the song, unless other terms are specified in the assignment contract, a smart thing to do under the songwriter's vantage point. After all a publisher should not have rights to exploit a work if it is not doing so effectively. The idea of a lifetime assignment to a publisher is plainly stupid for the author and the publisher has nothing to loose, unless a certain income level for the author is guaranteed.

GETTING BACK THE RENEWAL RIGHTS

If the renewal rights were never assigned to the publisher prior to when the rights arrived, there is no need for the author to get the rights back because they are his or her right, not the publisher's. If the publisher continued to have the work in their catalog or somehow continued the exploitation of the work (song, novel, etc.) after the rights returned to the author or his/her heirs, what the author needs to do is to reach an agreement with the publisher, whereby the author is compensated by the publisher. If an agreement cannot be reached, consult a lawyer to determine if a copyright infringement or breach of contract lawsuit or further negotiations are appropriate. But remember, judges are frequently (but not always) biased in favor of whoever has the big money and that is usually the publisher.

MILLIONS OF WORKS - BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL TIME

There are probably millions of songs, worth billions of dollars in appropriated (by music publishers) songwriter income, and other copyrighted works that are wrongly believed by authors and their heirs to belong to publishers, mostly because publisher lawyers have told (misled may be a better word) them that the ownership of these rights are unchangeable. Who will correct this, on of the greatest scams of all time? A class action lawsuit? Who knows.

SOME EXAMPLES

1. Peermusic, a large music publishers claimed it acquired "Tu bien lo sabes" the song from composer Guillermo Venegas (father of the author) through an assignment made in 1970 by the composer. The assignment was never recorded (violation 1). A copyright registration was obtained by Peermusic in 1971. In exchange for nothing, the composer assigned the renewal rights to Peermusic. The renewal rights accrued in 1999, 28 years later and 6 years after the composer died. So the rights accrued to the heirs of the composer. Peermusic never notified the heirs that renewal period had arrived (violation 2) and that these belonged to the heirs. In 2004 a judge that did not understand the facts and the laws and who was misled by Peermusic said the copyright to the song belonged to Peer (violation 3), thereby frustrating the copyright law and the rights of the heirs of the compser. See here for the details: http://www.gvenegas.com .

2. In 1999 the renewal rights to eight songs of composer Guillermo Venegas that Peermusic claimed (but actually did not) to own accrued. Peermusic never notified the heirs of the composer, who had died 6 years earlier, of the fact and continued t oct as if they owned the songs. See here for the details: http://www.gvenegas.com .

THE AUTHOR

The author of this article was a victimim of Peermusic lack of notification that renewals had accrued. If it had not been for the the complicated and expensive research that was done this author would still not know that it was an owner of the songs because of the renewal clause in the law.

This article may be republished with permission from the author. Just ask.

Author: Rafael Venegas
December 25, 2004 (Merry Christmas!)
rafa_venegas@hotmail.com
http://www.gvenegas.com

States copyright attorney Ivan Hoffman at http://www.ivanhoffman.com/termination.html that for assignments
made before January 1, 1978, "A creator may not contract away the creator’s rights to renew a copyright
or to terminate the grant.".

The author's father was a composer who signed a contract in 1952 that gave away his copyrights to Peermusic. Peermusic, who, in over 50 years with over 20 assigned songs never had a single (some are great songs) of these songs recorded. Peermusic claims that they own the song's renewal rights, that arrived many years later than 1952, because the composer gave away his RENEWAL rights. More information here: http://www.gvenegas.com

The Copyright Funnel

A homage to the many creators who died poor while
their works made the copyright industry very rich.

WHY COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE WRONG

Why we live with The Copyright Funnel

Principles:

There will always be a funnel for all creations. Not all creations will reach all the public. The rule is and will always be "Some of the creations will reach some of the public some of the time".

For security reasons not all creations can or should be made available to the public. For example, the design of an atomic bomb.

The laws are wrong in being concerned about creating incentives to have more works created. The theoretical concern of the law, it is claimed, is about the input (wide) side of the funnel, to incentivate the producers of the works, the creators.

The copyright and contract laws act to reduce the output side of the funnel as small as possible. We can the say this is the The Funnel Copyright System that has destroyed the quality of the works. Nevertheless The Funnel Copyright System is good for the copyright industry because it reduces internal (old works competing with new works) and external competition (works from other publishers).

The actual result The Funnel Copyright System is to incentivate the copyright industry to become political and courtroom investors for the purpose of acquiring the works of the creators at the least cost and exploiting the public who consumes the works with the highest prices.

Another result of The Funnel Copyright System is the creation of many organizations to protect the interests of the copyright industry at the expense of the consumers, who are generally unprotected by legislators and the courts.

To further eliminate competition and have greater control of the output end of the funnel, the copyright industry will consolidate into fewer and bigger companies that will monopolize more creations and the access of the public.

Another result of the The Funnel Copyright System is to hide the works of individual creators, thereby suppressing the creation of more works. The vast majority of creations are not made available to the vast majority of people under The Funnel Copyright System and represents a terrible loss. The copyright industry couldn’t care less about this situation.

When the works of creators are hidden and suppressed, non-talented creators fill the void by passing their work as creation. The copyright industry likes this because the non-talented creator creations are cheaper and more the creators are more easily controlled.

The correct thing is to have incentives so more creations are made available to the public. The concern should be for the output side of the funnel to be as wide as possible. Ideally the funnel is eliminated. But this is bad for publishers, so the Internet and P2P is an enemy for the copyright industry because this industry is pro The Funnel Copyright System.

The best incentive is freedom to create and freedom to use the created works.

Not everyone is a real creator. For example, anyone can write a “poem” or a “song” or a scientific treaty explaining why the earth is flat, but not everyone knows what he or she are writing about.

The real creators can be paid with public funds. The worst method of paying the creators is the current method, where all the money passes first through the copyright industry accountants that do not work for the creators or the public interest.

The public can pay for their enjoyment or use of the creations through taxes.

Taxes can also finance or subsidize big budget creations. For example, movies. These creations can then be given short period monopolies, to the creators.

What is fashionable or popular is determined by the copyright industry through intensive promotion, not by the creators or the public.

When the copyright industry talks about the welfare of creators and their employees, you are hearing wolves in sheep's clothing.

Whatever income is lost by the copyright industry if the output end if FCS is ended or reduced, it is money saved by the consumers, who will spend the savings in such a manner that more taxable wealth is created, so no jobs are lost and with the taxes the creators can be paid.

The copyright industry can still profit from the packaging and delivery of the creations, without having a monopoly over the creations, just like sellers of food.

The current laws create an incentive for the copyright industry to take creations that are not fashionable or popular off the market, regardless of its values, to be put in dead creation vaults, where the creations cannot be used by anyone, even the creator who created it. In The Funnel Copyright System, most creations are lost forever within the funnel and never come out. The creations were thus destroyed by the copyright laws.

The laws have created little incentive for creators create more. A few creators who are artists survive but the vast majority does not.

The laws have further reduced creations because creators now fear being sued and even the frivolous lawsuits are incredibly expensive to litigate.

The ideas of The Funnel Copyright System was developed when slavery was common and acceptable.

The maximum flow of creations at the reduced side of the funnel is achieved by making the reduced end of the funnel as wide as possible. That should have been the purpose of the copyright laws in the first place. The writers of the laws simply got off the wrong foot, not an uncommon thing and worked on the wrong side of the funnel and came up with The Funnel Copyright System.

The constitution instead of saying "To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . . ." should say "To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for unlimited limited Time free access to Author’s Writings and Discoveries . . . .". This is WHY COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE WRONG.

When it cannot be determined what is and what is not in the public domain, everything is on the public domain in the people’s perception.

The copyright industry’s rights will not be respected until the copyright industry respects the rights of the creators.

Everything created will eventually be digitized and freely transferable electronically very quickly. No one can stop that if it is done in the privacy of the home, even if the states label the copier “criminal”.

Label enough or the wrong citizens “criminals” and the people will revolt.

Legislators (and government functionaries as well) will not be respected until the output side of the funnel is made to be as wide as possible. That is their job, if they work for the voters who elected them and not the political investors who pay them.

This is WHY COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE WRONG.

Note: While this writing is based on American law, but the principles apply to all nations.

Author: JOHN X

The Copyright Funnel is in the Public Domain, so it may be freely published, mailed and copied

Respect is requested. Please publish unchanged and credit the author.

Recommended:
The Purpose of Copyright by Lydia Pallas Loren
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php