Slashdot Mirror
UK Copyright Extension Not Happening
chiark writes "In a surprising move (surveys said that the public supports extending copyright), the UK will not extend copyright to 95 years following a recent study. Back when this was was covered on slashdot last year, I wrote to my MP and thought no more of it, but recently a UK thinktank has called for fair use to be enshrined in UK Law. Looks like the government is realizing that the public are the ones that vote 'em in or out." From the article: "Sir Cliff Richard and Jethro Tull had been among artists lobbying for copyright to last 95 years, rather than the present 50. The decision means that from 2008 Sir Cliff's earliest recordings will start to come out of copyright. "
That was a direct quote from Lars Ulrich from when Tull got the Grammy everyone thought Metallica would get, dude. There's some kind of weird poetic justice here.
Civilisation didn't actually start with the US constitution! The *original* copyright was actually 21 years, specified in the British Statute of Anne in 1710, unless you count the licencing act of 1662, which granted rights that never expired.
While I'm in favour of much shorter copyright terms, I'm not sure your analogy works very well, since dead garbagemen don't clear up much rubbish, but dead musicians do sell a lot of records.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
This applies only to music recordings, not to copyrights in general. For other works (such as the musical compositions and lyrics themselves), the rule in the UK is that copyrights last for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Although the recordings of the Beatles' early recordings may become PD in the UK in 2013, even if Paul were to choke on a stalk of brocolli tomorrow morning, all those Lennon-McCartney compositions would still be copyrighted until 2077, and until then you wouldn't be able to make copies of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" without paying composition royalties to... well... Michael Jackson, I guess.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The issue is quite separate from copyright, and it's called an Option. It's much more common in movies and financial markets than it is in music, because the potential losses in the music industry are much lower. It's not so much that music artists are as shrewd, just that the risks aren't as big.
When you want to purchase something with a high risk, you can often share that risk with the original owner of the thing you want to buy.
In the case of The Hobbit, Saul Zaentz has the sole right to produce a movie of the hobbit. Selling the rights to such a movie is high risk for both sides. New Line doesn't know how much the movie is going to make, so from a risk point of view, they probably want to buy the rights for a minimal up-front fee, and then pay royalties. Saul Zaentz's, on the other hand, doesn't want to have New Line sit on the rights forever - someone else might be able to make it into a successful movie.
So Saul Zaentz sells New Line an option to make the movie. New Line can warrant investing money in the idea, because they know how much it will cost them to go ahead. Saul Zaentz is happy, because he still gets paid at least a little bit even if New Line decides not to go ahead with the movie, and he can then sell another option to another studio. They've shared the risk.