Editing Touch and Go Records (section)

==Controversy==
Touch and Go's approach to contracts was challenged in a court case started in 1999 by the [[Butthole Surfers]], who purported that Touch and Go was not marketing its previously released material effectively. The band argued that because its contract with the label was of an unspecified duration, the contract could be terminated. Touch and Go argued that according to existing US copyright law, it controlled the [[copyright]] to the band's recordings for a minimum of 35 years, based on sec. 203 of the [[Copyright Act of 1976]].

The US Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the band, determining that "when a contract is silent as to its length, it is implicit that it can be terminated by either side," and that "allowing terminations under [[Illinois]] law does not conflict with sec. 203, but rather is, in fact, in keeping with the intent of sec. 203."<ref>U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 172 F.3d 481. ''Paul L. Walthal, Gibson J. Haynes, and Jeffrey S. Coffey v. Corey Rusk d/b/a Touch and Go Records''. Argued Dec. 7, 1998, decided March 26, 1999. Retrieved from [http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/172/481/599637/ Justia.com] on Oct. 4, 2008. Also see the 3/26/99 ''Chicago Reader'' article (earlier note and External links) for case summary and background.</ref>