Slashdot Mirror
EU Record Companies Push to Extend Copyright
TPIRman writes "European record companies, as represented by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, are pressuring the European Union to extend copyright terms for music producers. Critics like Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig are predictably opposed, but the IFPI argues that the move is needed in order to bring the E.U. in sync with U.S. copyright regulations. Ironically, one of the original rationales behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was that U.S. copyrights needed to sync up with European standards."
The guy in the UK pushing this is James Purnell. If you live in the UK you should write to him.
See my reply to the previous posting of this spam/troll post here:
d =12768928
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152166&ci
Thank you...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
WIRED ARTICLE
[1]
There needs to be more of a balance when considering changes to copyright terms, said Rufus Pollock, director of Friends of the Creative Domain
[2]
Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.
WIKIPEDIA
[1]
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790, that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry, and that some works would be created under perpetual copyright that would never be created under time
[2]
Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, noted that "Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever", but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day"
No, I completely agree.
I think you missed a bit though. The European Council get to be undemocratic too! They are the secretive bunch appointed by national governments who decide whatever they want behind closed doors and when it turns out not to be what anyone actually wants they simply blame all the other ministers from other countries!
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
14 years with one renewal for another 14 year = 28 years..
1790: Copyright Act of 1790
The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." Major revisions to the act were implemented in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
from A History of Copyright in the United States
Less, actually. It was to shrink the commission slighly and give the Parliament more power to veto stupid ideas.
With the parliament actually having teeth rather than being a nod in the general direction of democracy, the national governments complained because they might have some of their more stupid ideas overruled - they're more used to controlling the commission and getting things done that way.
It's this last point which had some of the anti-EU types up in arms... they'd rather an unelected commission than a parliament with power.
Maybe, because the constitution is not yet in force?
If you are lucky enough to live in one of the countries where your opinion is asked, read part II, article 77, paragraph 2:
Now, contrast this with the US constitution: What's missing in the EU version?- Reference to promoting progress
- Absence of term limits
===> So once the constitution is approved, the EU record companies will be able to buy laws and directives giving them perpetual copyright. They won't need to play any Sonny Bono games, where they extend copyright Salami-like, 20 years more every 20 years. They wil be able to go straight away for eternity!Quite frankly, I don't think that you will see anywhere near the revenue from personal appearances and first runs that you would from being protected from thieves. Copyrights are fine. Permanent copyrights aren't. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But thanks to the Bono Act, in the U.S. all sound recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until 2067. This applies even to the earliest recordings on wax cylinders and discs made in the 1890s, which Sony now claims the rights to.
... For example, a sound recording published in 1925 will be protected until 2020." (If I'm not mistaken, works before 1923 wouldn't be renewed because they weren't out of copyright due to the technicalities listed under clause 3 in the above document.)
That's not entirely correct. The Bono Act didn't return anything to copyright; the URAA, passed at the same time did. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.html gives a list of what the URAA did; in particular, it only returned certain foreign works to copyright. Also, only for "for 95 years from the year of first publication.
Now, the confusing part is that states have been permitted to hold common-law copyrights on soundrecordings, and New York apparently does so, for a indefinite amount of time (not longer than 2067). But that's independent of Bono and URAA.