Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Copyright Extension Not Happening

Posted by Zonk on from the refreshing-change dept.

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. "

8 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Living off 1955... by mccalli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:
    'Music journalist Neil McCormack told BBC Radio Five Live it was a blow to the industry..."You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties... been living on that and suddenly they're gone."'.

    Well yep - honestly if you haven't done anything else in 50 years it probably should be gone too. In a not especially long amount of time, some Beatles stuff will be coming out of copyright. Now I'm no Beatles expert, but it seems to me that absolutely all of them went on to do more work elsewhere and didn't just sit back living off their early work. I see that statement as a good thing, not as a 'blow to the industry'.

    Be interesting to compare and contrast with film - what's the UK limit on film copyrights?

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Living off 1955... by elronxenu · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Much as I love Jethro Tull, I can't agree with Ian Anderson's position on this issue.

      Here's his webpage on the matter: Anderson Speaks Out on Recorded Copyright Law in the UK in which Ian considers that copyright on his recordings should be like owning a house - the owner can obtain revenue from the house indefinitely.

      I think "painting a house" is a better analogy. Performing/recording music is like painting a house, it requires a fixed amount of effort to complete. The painter doesn't receive ongoing royalties from people who enjoy looking at the house, nor does the owner of the house have to pay the painter every year for the previous paint job.

      In fact Ian goes on to say "I would have better protection as the bricks-and-mortar builder of my house than a builder of recorded music.". Well, the house builder doesn't receive ongoing royalties either.

      Ian complains that "This Was" will be out of copyright in 12 years. I note that "This Was" requires exactly zero ongoing effort from the band. The only effort required is in reproduction and distribution, for which the record label is, ahem, more than adequately compensated.

      Ian closes his argument by appealing to our compassion: "Why should we perhaps have to see these musicians struggle in old age without heat for their homes or the wherewithal to pay their nursing home bills while their American counterparts are taken care of for life by ongoing royalty income?". Of course being an appeal to emotion, it isn't a terribly rational argument. Why should old artists be treated any differently to old painters? We expect the painters to provide for their own old age by investments, superannuation or, failing that, the Government pension. Why should old artists be treated differently, that they should not care to provide for their future while they are still earning money from their performances or compositions?

    2. Re:Living off 1955... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If I start and then leave a profitable company... do I have to give up my stock after 50 years? Why not?

      I'd say the company is a real entity, still actually producing. Your "intellectual property" is pretty imaginary.

      I would say that if, after 50 years, the company itself should be losing some intellectual property -- if they are an R&D firm, they better be making new things if they want to be around after 50 years. If you're selling real, physical products, then by all means, continue. If you're sitting on some real estate, and you've found a way to make money off it, chances are you have to actually do some maintenance, so that seems fair. But if all you're doing is sitting on some patents, then the company should die in 5 years, not 50.

      If I create sculptures that I charge people to see in my gallery, do I have to give them up after 50 years?

      I'd say that after 50 years, people should be able to copy your sculpture, make derivative works, etc. You don't have to give them up.

      I'm just uncomfortable with society appropriating my property when "it" feels I've had it long enough.

      The thing is, you're still thinking of copyright as your property.

      Copyright is actually a bit mis-named. It's a right to be the only one copying, not simply a right to copy. You can still sell them after 50 years, but others can make copies and sell those.

      And I do feel that after 50 years, you should either be doing something else or you should be retired. Think of it as a tax -- after those 50 years, your work becomes available for others to improve on. Derivative works are a good thing. Public archives are a good thing.

      It might help if you think of it less as your property and more as a lease from society. After all, society giveth the copyright, society has the right to taketh away. Yes, you put in the work to create the material, but society bears the burden of protecting this artificial right of yours -- laywers, courts, etc. Just somewhat better than, say, signing a deal with most record labels...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  2. Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably not a good idea to put a price on the head of an author when you consider that the music industry is already into mafia-like tactics like payola...

  3. Exactly by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works. Anything more than 10 years (in my view) is actually counterproductive. Derivative works are stymied by the monopoly the original creator has. Sure, you can negotiate and pay big dollar to license a derivative work. But, for example, had Disney been the original creator of "Alice in Wonderland" you can bet that the video game "Alice" would never have been made.

  4. Copyright Extensions are Theft by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The pro-copyright crowd loves to scream "theft" when the crime is technically copyright infringement and even though a person has a new copy, the original copy owner hasn't lost possession of his copy.

    But here I think "theft" is the right term.

    These works were published and purchased under the terms of copyright at the time - that after a specified number of years ownership would transfer to the public domain - we would all own it.

    When copyrights are unilaterally extended, as has been the case many times recently, the public is deprived of the ownership that they were promised under the original agreement. In this case, we have something that is tangibly missing - public ownership of the work and I think that fits the definition of theft far better than making copies does.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Copyright Extensions are Theft by SinGunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      damnit. i wanted to rate this up, but 5 is the max. where's the (Score:6, Really Insightful) option?

  5. The *copyright* is the property, not the idea by Geof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm just uncomfortable with society appropriating my property when "it" feels I've had it long enough.

    It seems to me the idea (piece of music, recording, whatever) is not and cannot be property (at least not in the sense that physical objects or land can be property). The copyright itself - i.e., the limited-time monopoly created and enforced by the government - is the property. Let me emphasize that: the property here is created by the government. As an encouragement for artists and others to produce ideas, society rewards them by creating a kind of property and granting it to them. Society moreover provides resources for the enforcement of that property right. But the right is time limited: after a certain period, society no longer recognizes or enforces the right it previously granted.

    Think of it like this. You write a song. You take that song to the government, and they give you a document stating that you have an exclusive right to copy and perform that song for the next N years. The song may not be property, but the document certainly is: its ownership is enforced by the law, you can sell it, and so forth. When those N years are up, you still have the document, but the rights in conferred have expired. Did anyone take anything away from you? On the contrary, they gave you something. Oh, and incidentally, you still have the song you wrote.

    These days there's no document proving your rights; the grant is automatic. I don't know if there ever was such a document, although filing used to be required. The point is, copyright is a social construct, and the right is property. Ideas, on the other hand, are not.