Slashdot Mirror


'That's All Right' Soon To Enter UK Public Domain

jwlidtnet writes "Reuters is reporting that Elvis's "That's All Right"--currently an unlikely hit in Great Britain--is soon to enter the public domain in that country, followed by other milestones of popular music as Britain's fifty-year protection period comes to an end. Naturally, rights owners are outraged, regarding it as a "wakeup call" for Britain to adopt something similar to the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, to end this "discrepancy between the United States and the EU." Copyright law uniformity has of course been a sore issue in recent years, with the exportation of "DMCA-alike" legislation raising the ire of many. Uniformity on an issue this divisive might be difficult to achieve politically."

3 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What I find really scary... by bogado · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind. So, it might actually be reasonable to give infinite ownership to the creator.


    Well I don't agree with jadavis, I know that is not how mine society and culture thinks and I am quite sure it isn't how your society thinks. But I don't think that this should be truen even for real wealth.

    Let me explain, in my point of vies, many of western societies were based in european monarchy. In those times wealth, lands and more importantly titles, were passed from father to sun. This would ensure that the aristrocracy would stay powerful and dominant.

    In the modern days we don't have a "aristocracy" or do we? The wealthiest and richer do have a head start. They simply get all theyr money from their parents and can keep living the good life most people can only dream about.

    Is it fair? The answer I think most people will give are "sure" and "of course". But I don't think so. I am not a religious man myself, but I do think that all men should be created equal. To an extend this is not possible, because a rich father can donate money to their heir when he is still alive. But when he dies why should the son suddenly become rich? Why shouldn't this money be redistribuited to the hole society?

    Sure this would be dificult, but just imagine if all this money from all the people who die, would pay for medical ensuring living people. Pay for education and unemplyment ensuranses. And even more importantly paying for retirment, to give a dignity to the people who alredy contributed to the society.

    Well I know it is an utopia. People who have the power don't want to share it, not even when they are already dead.
    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

  2. Re:What I find really scary... by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The early music hits of Elvis Presley and other early rock'n'rollers from the 1950s comes directly from the African-American common music tradition. These songs, rythyms, and chord progressions were developed by slaves over hundreds of years. They passed from person to person in the American Black community as a folk tradition, a way of dealing with the harsh realities of African-American life in the deep South. They didn't just appear out of the thin air, even if that is what is seems like to modern people who learned to love this music after hearing it on the radio.

    If anyone deserves to benefit from the sale of this music, it is people who are descendent from the people who actually created it.

    The wealth generated by African-American music should go to the music departments of the high schools, community colleges, and universities (especially the historically African-American colleges) of the South. Many of these departments have had major cutbacks in their budgets while the five major global media corporations take in billions of dollars annually from the sale of songs based on African-American musical traditions.

    Americans always talk a lot about justice, but they mean 'just us' when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is.

  3. Re:You do not understand copyright. by khasim · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I find the pure ignorance of the average slashbot to be fascinating.

    "If I write a book and send it to a publisher who then publishes it without my permission they are breaching my copyright."

    So, I say that copyright only protects work that is distributed.

    And you say I am wrong and that copyright would protect a work of your's that is distributed by a publisher.

    Fascinating.