Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New IFPI Boss Vows to Extend Recording Copyrights

Posted by michael on from the class-war dept.

JamesD_UK writes "John Kennedy, President and COO of Universal Music is to succeed Jay Berman as Chairman of the IFPI, the worldwide equivalent to the RIAA. Andrew Orlowski of The Register has written an article covering John Kennedy's views on copyright infringement and the public domain. Although Kennedy's thoughts on the former are predictable, he has vowed to fight hard to extend European recording copyrights past the current fifty year term. An extension of the European term to match the US would be particularly damaging to the public domain and efforts such as the Internet Archive as well as increasing the control that the recording industry holds over performers. For those interested, I run a small blog of articles regarding copyright recordings."

6 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. What I don't understand is... by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most recordings that're > 50 years old are no longer profitable anyway, aren't they?

    I mean, isn't the real cash cow in the new 'hit' stuff they're making with cookie cutters nowadays?
    Is it actually worth their time and energy to be able to go back that far? I thought they'd go where the money is...

    Perhaps I'm just misguided...

    1. Re:What I don't understand is... by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, they can be profitable.

      Maybe some director want's to use some old song in his '50s era gangster epic.

      Hell, stuff like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Beatles, Buddy Holly, Hendrix... That'll always be profitable.

      How much is Brockheimer (sp?) paying to use those Who songs as the theme for his umpteen billion CSI spinoffs?

      The stuff that isn't well known or popular... Who knows? Society is weird, all of a sudden some obscure song from 1961 is the biggest dance craze of 2005.

      Even if it's worth no more than a nickel, they don't want to take the chance of losing it.

      It doesn't cost them anything to keep they copyrights for decades or centuries.

      Perhaps if it did, things would change. They'd have to decide, song by song, which are worth holding onto. But, if holding copyrights are a financial burden to the holder, it'd bar regular folks from the same protection that rich folks or corporations have.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:What I don't understand is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what I've seen so far, the propaganda here in Europe has mostly circled around the fact that the earliest recordings of Elvis are due to turn 50 soon and they are apparently still bringing in cash for the record companies.

      They even made some remixes of old Elvis songs and used the fact that they managed to top some charts to argument that "old" music could still be "fresh" and generate money. This (according to lobbyists) was an argument when lobbying European politicians to prolong the copyright.

      Personally, I feel it's an argument for the opposite side...apparently cool music can be made when the public creativity is unleashed upon the "old" music as it falls into public domain...that's part of the reasoning *for* time-limited copyright.

  2. Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is in the best interests of the entertainment industry to extend copyrights. So before everyone gets their panties in a twist, remember that it's going to be this guy's job to improve the standard of living for executives in the recording industry.

  3. Re:Poor Picasso is rolling over in his grave! by hype7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the man is so far off base from a normal human being I'm wondering if he's not the RIAA's Manchurian Candidate:

    The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.

    The first step in beating these pricks is to get Congress's hands out of their pockets. Until that happens, people like this will be put in positions of power where he can continue to go after the little 12-y-o criminals.

    -- james

  4. Are musicians part of the music industry anymore? by KneepadsOfAllure · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said. At Polygram (which became Universal), Kennedy had stopped the practice of chart-fixing, he said, "because we were so bad at it. Songs that were supposed to chart at No.6 were coming in at No.34". Don't you love it when the people who run the music industry don't actually care about the people who MAKE music? And he said they stopped chart-fixing because they were bad at it?! He does think that it's WRONG to outright lie to the public to try to shove shitty music down their throats, he's just disappointed it didn't work as well as they thought it would. What a joke.