UK Copyright Under Fire Again

stupid_is writes "Following on from the story on the Gower Report in the UK, a host of musicians (over 4,500 of them, including poor, starving stars such as U2, Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel) have taken out a big ad in the FT to back the call for an extension to copyright in the UK. Allegedly, that's what the British public wants — although the survey seems to be asking a different, rather biased, question." From the article: "A spokesman for the Open Rights Group, which campaigns for greater digital rights, said: 'The big music firms have done a good job of persuading some artists to sign up to this but anyone who reads the Gowers review will see it demolishes the arguments for extension. An awful lot of content creators are not represented by this and recognise an extension will do nothing for creativity and nothing for the public.'"

Comments

It's logical they would feel this way.

[Maxo-Texas]

Copyright was instituted for society so work would be created. It was not instituted for the creators. It was instituted to encourage them to create for society. I do not see any evidence that creators are boycotting and refusing to create new works because they "only" have copyright for 50 years.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[nine-times]

It's not even to encourage the artists to create. Never, during the whole of human history, has there been difficulty in getting people to participate in creative works. There are going to be people who want to make music, paintings, movies, and books, even if there's no reward but fame.

The purpose is to make it economically feasible to publish works. Without copyright protection, the large investment to bring a work to market would not have been worth it, considering that someone else could simply copy that work and sell it if it actually became popular enough to cover your investment. Therefore, record companies and book publishers would not have been able to make a profit from funding new works.

Therefore, as the technology improves and the price of development and distribution costs come down, and it becomes cheaper to bring a work to market, it follows naturally that we should become less strict on copyright protections. Should development costs, production costs, and distribution costs ever reach the point where they're free, then it probably means that we'll have reached the point where IP protection is completely obsolete.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Blue Stone]

> Copyright was instituted for society so work would be created.

As I understand it, originally, copyright was a monopoly handed out by the King, usually in return for money.
This is the problem - although there have been laudable attempts to bend 'intellectual monopolies' to the benefit of society (limited times for the advancement... etc,) at root, copyright is about restricting dissemination of culture/creativity for the benefit of a few (the monopoly holder of that creative expression): the noble objectives are just patches; the kernel is about restiction.

Human's being what they are, greed sets in, and whaddayaknow, the patches are circumvented to return copyright to its original purpose - a simple monopoly state.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[eldavojohn]

No, it's not logical they should feel this way.

I once considered myself a bass player. At bars we would play songs & work 50% originals with 50% covers. We were pretty much illegally performing songs (Don't Let Me Down by The Beatls, Karma Police by Radiohead, Yellow by Coldplay, The Door by The Turin Brakes, etc.). Now, why do we do this? It pleases the crows and shows them that we like their music and that if they listen to ours hopefully they see the influence and elements. Yes, every band borrows these things--you can't deny it.

It doesn't make any sense that Sir Paul should say this. Look at the line up of The Beatles' first album:

• 1. "I Saw Her Standing There" - 2:55
• 2. "Misery" - 1:50
• 3. "Anna (Go to Him)" (Arthur Alexander) - 2:57
• 4. "Chains" (Gerry Goffin/Carole King) - 2:26
• 5. "Boys" (Luther Dixon/Wes Farrell) - 2:27
• 6. "Ask Me Why" - 2:27
• 7. "Please Please Me" - 2:03
• [edit] Side Two
• 1. "Love Me Do" - 2:22
• 2. "P.S. I Love You" - 2:05
• 3. "Baby It's You" (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach) - 2:38
• 4. "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" - 1:59
• 5. "A Taste of Honey" (Bobby Scott/Ric Marlow) - 2:05
• 6. "There's a Place" - 1:52
• 7. "Twist and Shout" (Phil Medley/Bert Russell) - 2:33

Ok, so nearly half the songs are covers of other musicians. Now I would like to ask Paul how it is that a starting band (exactly like him) gets enough money to pay the licensing costs to half their songs which are covers. Was it easy for you, Paul? Would it be that easy for bands today? Shouldn't you be honored that musicians are influenced by you and worship you?

When you look at the irony of Paul's statements considering that first album, it really makes me wonder how much money he'll need before he's a happy man. Does he realize the implications this has on the music in his country and possibly the world?

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Dachannien]

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. The quality of work has probably increased as a result of copyright (okay, if you ignore the past ten years' worth of music...), so there's likely some minimum copyright term needed to maintain that level of creative motivation, beyond which the important motivating factor is protecting the credit given to the original author.

However, I do agree that copyright terms have been severely extended beyond that minimum (anything beyond the life of the creator comes to mind). In fact, copyright terms are so long now that creative efforts are hindered, by blocking the creativity of people who want to make derivative works or even protect the public existence of original works.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Maxo-Texas]

You are preaching to the choir.

I'm saying it is logical that they would think things that benefit them are reasonable even if they are not. You ask 4500 artists who are making money off 50 year old copyrighted material if it is reasonable to extend the copyright and change the rules (even for dead people) and of course-- they feel it is.

It's also logical that as a cover band performer you would feel differently.

It's very difficult to find what is truly reasonable. Everyone asserts "Well the thing that benefits ME is obviously reasonable." A lot of time, the first person to baldly assert something as true sets the play field and everyone else goes along even tho it was basically random.

It is equally reasonable to set the copyright period for 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, 50 years. They all are someone arbitrary. It's clearly unreasonable to set it for 0 years and clearly unreasonable to set it to "forever and one day". (Well.. at least most people would agree to that- there are folks on both ends who feel 0 years or "forever" are emminantly reasonable).

The problem is there is no obvious way to measure this and pick a rational value where we get the most creative work of the highest quality for the lowest price.

A lot of rock and roll would probably not be legal since it includes older music that would have been protected by copyright (killing rock and roll in the cradle).

The hypocrisy of a band suing another band for "stealing their song" when it includes blues riffs that they stole from the public domain using their rules is amusing and irritating at the same time.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Maxo-Texas]

And oddly, as the quality increases and the market size increases, then the quality declines since so much money is at stake that the backers only want to go with "safe" bets.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[mabhatter654]

Exactly!! The original term "copyright" was "Copy Wright".. it was the king's authorization to OWN, POSSESS, or even USE a printing press. You had to promise that you'd use your new found press responsibly, not to undermine the king's power. It was a "king sanctioned" thing... like the royal baker or a knight.

It was the Americans that shifted the idea of copyright as something ANYBODY could get for a small price per document. It was a radical then as GPL is now.. for about the same reasons.

American's seem to forget Congress is FORBIDDEN to grant "titles of Nobility"... that doesn't just mean Congress can't call somebody "King" or we have to kick a girl out because she marries a REAL prince. A title of "nobility" is something that endures.. you pass on or inherit. Something "abstract" like a knight in service to a queen, or a lord over land... "IP" as a concept is beginning to fall into a "title of nobility" status. Only this time it's not one person that gets the "title" it's a corporation. YUCK! That makes it worse because the corporation never actually DIES. It makes the executives of the RIAA and MPAA like the religious priest class in other cultures. Only they can spread knowledge, entertainment, and even legal documents of the govt because of their "IP" property. Only they have the ability to protect "IP" property.. so you have to pay "fealty" and "prostration" to them to be heard.... that's 100% Un-American!

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

>[...] It pleases the crows [...]

I used to play for crows too, but they kept requesting this one song "Caw" that I could never find :-(

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[nine-times]

The quality of work has probably increased as a result of copyright?

I would be amazed if you could come up with evidence of that. Take all the works that existed before copyrights, and all those released directly to public domain (or a creative-commons/open-source license), and compare them to those which have been copyrighted, in terms of quality?

People want to be brilliant artists and rock stars. They want to write the great American novel. You don't need a motivating factor beyond that. Where the financial problem comes in is, if the creative people can't afford the time to create because they're working all day. The problem comes if a book publisher who is excellent at finding and fostering writers can't afford to maintain their facilities and equipment because every time they come up with a popular book, some other publisher manages to steal the work and undercut prices.

Those are the problems copyrights are intended to address. Let's say there is some guy out there who won't write a book because it will only make him famous, remembered throughout history, and pay his bills, but won't make him a super-ultra-mega rich billionaire. Do you really think that what he would have written would be so immensely incredible that we should hold up society and destroy people's lives because someone might download an MP3?

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[BeerCat]

When you look at the irony of Paul's statements considering that first album, it really makes me wonder how much money he'll need before he's a happy man.

Since he is about to have half of it taken away as a divorce settlement, then the answer is probably "about twice as much as he has now"

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[phantomflanflinger]

You can't criticise Slashdotters for preaching to the choir. The heathens won't come into the church; they're always somewhere else, enjoying themselves.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Sax Maniac]

We were pretty much illegally performing songs

Not necessarily. In the US, it's usually the venue's responsibility to get the proper ASCAP/BMI blanket licenses. It might have been illegal, but it's probably not your fault. About all you have to do is provide a songlist to the client, and I've never once been asked.

You also may be confusing performance and making a record. Here in the US you pay a fee for the rights record and distribute a song to the publisher. This has zero to do with performance. It's based on the number of records/CDs you print, and unless you're selling millions, it's not a lot of cash - pennies per track.

To nitpick, just playing someone else's song isn't a cover. A cover, to me, is when you play the song identically to the original, like a tribute band. If you make a jazzy bossa-nova arrangement of "Paranoid Android", it's not a cover. (There is one, and it's actually quite good!)

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[C0rinthian]

I would be amazed if you could come up with evidence of that. Take all the works that existed before copyrights, and all those released directly to public domain (or a creative-commons/open-source license), and compare them to those which have been copyrighted, in terms of quality? You are ignoring the context these works were created in. In the example of music, people tend to mention that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. had no copyright protection. Why would they need protection if a vast majority of the population had no means to copy their work? The only way to hear a Bach performance was to go listen to him perform, or find someone who was able to play his works at an equal level. Nowadays, you can download high quality recordings in seconds.

In the past, creators had natural protections. Technology has made it trivial to reproduce and distribute the works of others, requiring artificial protections to compensate.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[aLii_h]

If anyone had RTFA then maybe it would have been pointed out that the 50 year term only applies to performance. Copyright for actually writing a song currently extends for life+70years, and there is no proposal to reduce this...

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Hijacked Public]

Do you really think that what he would have written would be so immensely incredible that we should hold up society and destroy people's lives because someone might download an MP3?

Probably not, but this kind of argument ignores the culpability of the person who downloaded the file. They very well knew, or should have known, the consequences of their actions but they did it anyway. It also ignores that fact that downloading that MP3 is directly opposed to the content creator's wishes, as evidenced by the fact that he chose to sign a distribution contract with an **AA company. If we are actualy concerned about protecting the artist rather than securing free content for ourselves it might be wise to let him choose how to deliver his product.

The idea that an artist can't be motivated by money and still produce decent art always seems to come up in submissions like these, as if it is a binary choice. I make a nice living shooting photographs. If you'd like me to take pictures of your new model automobile for use in an ad campaign, you are going to have to pay me. Want me to go to Bolivia and follow one of your writers around? Pay me. Afghanistan? I'm going to need some cash for that. Yet I can still give stuff away when the situation warrants.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people who spend a lot of money (in some cases hundreds of millions) designing or creating products, they then apply and get a patent.

They get exclusive rights to that product and make money from them for 20 years, after which the patent expire and the public is then free to make use of the idea.

But a person who spend a few days jotting something down at almost no cost get to profit for 95 years?

Okay granted, there is some real cost involved, in materials, such as paint, pen, musical equipment and sometime rented space, but even then, the cost to create is low in comparison.

I would propose that copyrights be limited to 20 years just like patented products, with one (maybe two) exceptions. If a copyrighted work proved to be commercially viable, then the copyright holder can apply and pay to extend the copyright another 20 years. This is a one time deal. An additional exception could be for certain works (think Mickey Mouse), then for a large fee (say about a hundred thousand dollars, or more) they can retain the copyright another 20 years, up to a maximum of four extensions. This would of course be dated from the time of the original creation. This way if a work is commercially viable, the copyright holder would have no problem paying the fees. Those works that is not "commercially viable" in terms of the fees, would become public domain as they should be.

The people who is whining about this should learn to manage their money better just like the rest of us.

Right now, the way I see it, the **AA member companies are "buggy whips" manufacturers, they need to adapt and change their business plan, or go the way of the buggy whips manufacturers.

As someone mentioned, copyright is for the public good, not for the corporation good. Let's make it that way!

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[monkeydo]

If you were playing in bars that normally had live music (or a juke box) it's entirely possible that you were already covered under their licensing agreement.

Mechanical royalties for authors are currently at $.09 per song. In 1963, it was $.02 per song. So $.12 of each copy of Please Please Me was paid to outside authors. Whoopdi do. Plus, since the royalties are only paid on copies sold, there's really no burden at all. In any case it's paid by the label.

How does such ignorance get modded +5 insightful?

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[MrHanky]

Bach (I suppose you mean Johann Sebastian; there were several others) was an organist and a composer, and hardly the best performer of his solo violin and orchestral works. His notes could be published, and re-published by pirates. Many works were; most of Shakespeare's dramas were published by pirates even years before there was a legit version, by people who memorised or shorthanded the plays and wrote them down afterwards. Those were the "cam" versions of the days. Since proper publishing was a more time consuming activity back then, it was even more difficult being first to market.

Of course all of this is irrelevant as to whether Paul McCartney needs copyright extension. I don't care about him. Another problem is the other artists who are about to fall out of copyright, those who aren't world famous superstars, and won't be on iTunes, and won't be re-released on CD. With a copyright extension, those would still be illegal to distribute. A copyright extension will come to protect the already rich.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Casca1]

My question is simple. Does this mean the affected stars are going to say: "Fine, We'll take our toys and play in some OTHER sandbox?" Where, pray tell, might that be? No life on mars above the amoeba... We're the only game in town, baby!

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[nine-times]

They very well knew, or should have known, the consequences of their actions but they did it anyway.

Yeah, sure, damn those 10 year olds for downloading a song. They should have known that clinking on a link would cause their grandmother to get sued for tens of thousands of dollars.

It also ignores that fact that downloading that MP3 is directly opposed to the content creator's wishes, as evidenced by the fact that he chose to sign a distribution contract with an **AA company.

Not really. It assumes that the creators wishes are not paramount in all cases. Did Shakespeare want Romeo & Juliet to be made into a musical? I don't know, but who cares? IP protection is granted to creators by society for the good of society, and not so their whims can be carried out in perpetuity.

The idea that an artist can't be motivated by money and still produce decent art always seems to come up in submissions like these, as if it is a binary choice.

And yet... that's not what I was saying. At all. I will grant you immediately that money can be a motivating factor towards producing a given work of art. However, this leads copyright supporters to a conclusion which does not follow: that most good artist would not be creative if not for the possibility of making millions of dollars from a single work of art. What I would like to put forward, at least as a possibility, is that those who would cease making art because of no promise of untold riches are not great artists anyhow. There are plenty of other motivating factors, including fame, moderate wealth, and sex with groupies. Besides all that, a certain number of people produce artwork out of a creative compulsion, with not motive other than the need for a creative outlet.

Therefore, I am suggesting that, contrary to all arguments, mp3 trading over the internet will not bring about the end of music.

Even with your example of yourself, you're asking people to pay you for going somewhere and taking pictures of a specific thing. Would that end without copyright protection? No. If someone wanted you to go to Bolivia and follow a writer around, you could still demand money for that.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[C0rinthian]

When large portions of the population are illiterate, there is less concern about someone copying your stuff. Then you gotta find someone who can play it. (And Bach was considered the best performer of his organ works, which a majority of his compositions were for)

Could things be copied in those times? Yes, but not at anywhere near the scale they can be now. And that is the point.

I'm not supporting copyright extension here. I'm supporting copyright in general. As long as it is not abused, it is a beneficial system. However, the commercial industries that have developed around the arts are abusing the system, and attempting to change it to their own benefit, at the expense of the general public.

IMO, the people who scream for unlimited extensions are not looking out for the good of society. Those who want to abolish copyright entirely are no better. There is a balance point that will protect those that create, without stifling cultural development. We're getting away from that.

Personally, the 'Real artists aren't in it for the money' line annoys the crap out of me. It is an unrealistic ideal, and it is unfair to hold professional artists to that standard.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[nine-times]

In the past, creators had natural protections. Technology has made it trivial to reproduce and distribute the works of others, requiring artificial protections to compensate.

You are ignoring history. The artificial protection of "copyright" came long before it was trivial to reproduce and distribute works of others. Even with a printing press, it still took quite an investment to set the type, buy materials, and distribute writings. The law was not made to protect books from being read by unauthorized readers, but to prevent other presses from publishing work without a license from the author. The purpose here was to protect the new distribution method represented by the printing industry.

And yes, once upon a time, Mozart's music could not be enjoyed by the general public without paying *someone* to perform it, but that doesn't mean that they had to pay Mozart at any time. In fact, I'm not familiar with anyone in particular, but many artists and composers relied on wealthy patrons to pay them. They didn't make money by selling tickets to their performances, but they wrote/painted on commission. If they stopped performing or painting, they stopped getting paid. From what I can remember, in spite of being fairly prolific, Mozart was not terribly rich, either.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mechanical royalties for authors are currently at $.09 per song. In 1963, it was $.02 per song.

Given that England has never used $ as a currency symbol, I'm not sure exactly what the relevance of this to the early years of the Beatles is supposed to be.

How does such ignorance get modded +5 insightful?

How does someone who doesn't even appear to know what nationality the Beatles were get modded +3 informative? It's a mystery.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[cpt kangarooski]

It's not even to encourage the artists to create. Never, during the whole of human history, has there been difficulty in getting people to participate in creative works. There are going to be people who want to make music, paintings, movies, and books, even if there's no reward but fame.

Well, no. It is an encouragement. It's just not the only encouragement. Copyright doesn't function as an incentive in the realm of fame, only economic value. If fame is enough of an incentive for a given author, then it's wasteful to give him the unnecessary incentive of a copyright as well. If it is not enough of a reward, then a copyright would be appropriate (though it should be limited so that it isn't overly large and thus also wasteful in part). It's tough to make this determination, but system such as formalities do a decent job, and should be readopted in order to avoid public waste and make the copyright system more efficient.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[cpt kangarooski]

Literacy has nothing to do with it. If you're writing books, then whether the market of literate people is large or small, competitors will affect you. If you're writing plays, then literacy isn't relevant, since the market has more to do with the audience than the performers.

I agree that it's silly to be disdainful of artists who want to make money, but OTOH, if an artist is willing to work for free (i.e. he isn't in it for the money), then I am fully prepared to let him. And why shouldn't I be? Artists who are in it for the money are exhibiting greed. The public who wants things for free exhibit the exact same greed. Neither is morally superior to the other.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[cpt kangarooski]

It is equally reasonable to set the copyright period for 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, 50 years. They all are someone arbitrary. It's clearly unreasonable to set it for 0 years and clearly unreasonable to set it to "forever and one day". (Well.. at least most people would agree to that- there are folks on both ends who feel 0 years or "forever" are emminantly reasonable).

The problem is there is no obvious way to measure this and pick a rational value where we get the most creative work of the highest quality for the lowest price.

First, copyright isn't meant to be reasonable. It's a utilitarian system, that's simply meant to provide the greatest benefit to the public. Who else might happen to benefit, and how much, and whether they might benefit more or less under some other system, is totally irrelevant, save for how it affects the goal of providing the greatest benefit to the public.

Second, it is measurable, in that copyright only works as an economic incentive. Copyrights won't make you famous, or satisfy your artistic desires -- they will only let you monopolize the economic value of the work. This is pretty quantifiable as it happens. We can study the costs and profits of works en masse and work out just how rapidly they turn a profit, how much of a profit, etc. We can also see efficient uses of the works that are desirable, but which don't generate enough of a profit to be worth it to the copyright holder, or which he dislikes for other reasons. We can limit the scope of the monopoly to account for this so that these beneficial uses can still go on even without the copyright holder.

IIRC, the way it turns out, we end up with a term length of somewhere around 15 years from publication, formalities, and extensive exceptions and fair use provisions. There have actually been some nice academic studies documenting this, and as copyright increasingly becomes an interesting subject, there are more and more of them.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[MrHanky]

You're not going to get me to disagree with any of that. I'd like to point out, though, that even if artists very much would like to make money, very few of them make much, copyright or not. It's probably true that there's no lack of creators, and that we don't need to encourage them with money as a reward. We need to pay them so that they have the time to perform. Art takes time, and time is money.

After 50 years, I'm no longer sure it's necessary.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Tinman_au]

This isn't about the creators (i.e. The artist that actually made the music), they hold copyright for lifetime + 70 years, this is about recording publishers greed (i.e. the music companies) extending their portion of the copyright.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Hijacked Public]

you're asking people to pay you for going somewhere and taking pictures of a specific thing. Would that end without copyright protection?

Yes, it would.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay... so give me a provably best period for copyright.

You know 1+1=2 level of proof.

We have the original term arbitrarily.
We have any new term equally arbitrarily.

15 years may be perfect.
Or it could be 27 years.
Or it could change as our average lifespans change.
Or it could change based on a countries welfare system (a lot of artists lived off welfare in the past).

I agree- it's utilitarian. I don't agree that 15 years is provably the absolute best period. I've seen no data to back that up. And even data would only allow us to reasonably conclude under very tightly defined terms which might not exist in the real world.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!! The original term "copyright" was "Copy Wright".. it was the king's authorization to OWN, POSSESS, or even USE a printing press.

Unlikely! The earliest source for the word in the OED is from a the British Parliament in 1735:

1735 Parl. Coll., House of Lords 6 May (H.L.R.O.), The Editions and Impressions of such Books made and published as well in Great Britain as in Ireland and Scotland by persons who have paid no considerations for the Copy-right of such Books.

In fact, this use is perfectly in line with our modern interpretation of the word. What's your source for your claim?

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[bit01]

Technology has made it trivial to reproduce and distribute the works of others, requiring artificial protections to compensate.

That same technology has made it trivial for creators to create, distribute and sell to the world in seconds at close to zero cost. The fact that many incumbents choose not to use this technology is telling.

Technology is a tool that can be used by all parties. No artificial protections for vested interests required.

---

The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[bob frost]

Forgive me, but I beg to disagree. I'm related to a very famous poet who died in 1963, yet whose copyrights were extended under the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (you know, the one Sonny Bono hustled before he skiied into a tree). When CTEA was upheld a couple of years ago, the ground around the poet's grave in Bennington rumbled and a whole spate of new poems erupted from the earth. So yes, the dead do respond to economic incentives.

Of course Larry Lessig, that ever-subversive law faculty member at Stanford (which houses the Hoover Institute, a hotbed of anti-property Red subversion) was quick to note that some of the signers on the UK musicians' petition were dead (), yet as usual, he ignored how much more productive dead artists are when offered the appropriate incentives.

Re:It's logical they would feel this way.

[nomadic]

You are ignoring the context these works were created in. In the example of music, people tend to mention that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. had no copyright protection. Why would they need protection if a vast majority of the population had no means to copy their work?

More importantly, weren't they usually actually commissioned to come up with their works? They made their money at the start.

Who cares what the artists want?

[drinkypoo]

I know that's an inflammatory statement, but law is supposed to benefit the public. If it doesn't benefit the public then there's no reason for a law to exist.

Copyright benefits the public because it benefits everyone. But extending copyright into eternity benefits only a select few.

I couldn't care less what 4,500 artists want. It's a tiny slice of the population. Why support their greed? I think we can do without U2 anyway :D

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[HoboCop]

I care some.. If we don't protect the artists rights then we are effectively discouraging people from creating art. Being a musician today is already a dicey proposition at best. Only a very select few manage to make a reasonable living. I'm sure there are many people who would make excellent musicians who simply decided there were better and easier ways to survive. I feel like an artist should retain ownership of their creations until death, plus however many years the law decides after that.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[tddoog]

I say let them have their 95 year copyright. Let their greed lead them into extinction. If they want to control their songs for their fans entire lifetime then let them. People will be more likely to pursue creative commons/public domain music as it cheaper to create and improve.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[lixee]

I know that's an inflammatory statement, but law is supposed to benefit the public. If it doesn't benefit the public then there's no reason for a law to exist.

I'm afraid the reality is that laws benefits the ones who make them. Until we get rid of software patents and similar aberrations in IP laws, money will keep flowing to the wealthy and lawyers while hindering development.

Why support their greed? I think we can do without U2 anyway :D

I can live ... With or without U(2).

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Duds]

Until death is fine by me, but not one second longer.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Shimmer]

Why support their greed?

Is it greedy to want to retain control to your own work? I might disagree with Paul Mcartney on the law, but I wouldn't call his position greedy. I (and you) would probably feel the same way in his situation.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[GeckoX]

Law is supposed to benefit the public...interesting edict there...The general public? Interested public parties? Random sampling of the public?

Now, I do get what you're suggesting, however you're ignoring a very important part of your argument...the artist's ARE part of the public. Copyright laws are (intended) to protect THEIR rights...not some magical right of the people that did not create the music to have free access to someone else's work.

Don't take that wrong, I'm not discussing the validity of copyright term lengths, or extending copyrights from deceased artists into private corporate control, or any of the debatable areas of copyright law.

All I'm arguing is that copyright does NOT exist to benefit you, unless you have created something you wish to have protected via copyright. Rather, it exists to protect the artist FROM you.

This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cliffski]

I understand your feelings, even though I'm a pro-copyright games developer who relies on the concept for a living.
The thing is, you don't often hear from people who create content, and will defend it 'up to a point'. The only voices you hear are the 'everyone download my stuff' anti-copyright gang, and the 'its my property for the next thousand years' brigade.
Judging how long something should remain copyrighted is tricky, and probably should vary depending on the content type. Some things are useless after a few years, some things cost megabucks to make and payoff slowly. The idea that ANYTHING should remain in copyright for over 50 years is just bullshit though. If, as a creative person, I can't come up with another good idea every 50 years, I need to find another flipping job.
My own field is PC games, and I reckon 15 years is a reasonable length of time. Nobody is making real cash on games on older than this, and if they are, they probably made a shedload at release time.
If theres a petition from content creators requesting that copyright NOT be lengthened, just point me at it. We need emphasis on shorter copyright periods, but better enforcement (and fair use for format-shifting etc).
But U2 can just fuck off.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[A beautiful mind]

If we don't protect the artists rights then we are effectively discouraging people from creating art.

Right is a stupid word in this context. Calling it a legal power or some such is saner imo. If we don't have copyright, then they don't have the legal power which we then don't protect. Simple. Taking away copyright wouldn't be a discouragement per se, but rather a lack of encouragement by means of monopoly. I do believe if copyright wouldn't give so much profit to authors they'd be encouraged to produce stuff.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[fmackay]

I'm sure there are many people who would make excellent musicians who simply decided there were better and easier ways to survive.

I doubt it. I want to listen to music made by people who are driven to create great art without regard for the rewards. There is already far too much mediocre music out there created by the careerist types you seem to want to encourage.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[ThatsNotFunny]

That logic will turn cheapskates into Mark David Chapmans.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[edwardpickman]

I know it's a troll point of view at /. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system. It isn't greed on their part trying to cheat you out of some implied right of free downloads. If you're taking their work who's cheating here? There's always some one making money at it and trust me the day the copyrights run out there will be someone releasing $5 compliations of old classics and making money at it. Who has more right the artists or the ones making a quick buck? It's easy to throw names around like Bono and McCartney but they are a tiny percentage of the working artists involved. If you want them to continue to produce music you should be on the other side. If you don't listen to music what should you care? I want to pay for what I use but if all the downloading results in less and poorer quality material availible not only will the artists be hurt but I will. You figure garage bands will fill in the blamks? We've already seen a similar thing happen in film with changing markets. There's 10X as many low budget horror films availible than ever before but the market got flooded with made on video crap so I stopped watching them entirely. It simply wasn't worth my time. Making music go all amatuer won't improve the quality it'll just open it up to the truly talentless. Yes there will be gems but it'll be the needle in the haystack. Oh the web will sort it out for you and tell you what's good? Glad you trust everyone else to pick your music for you. There's been a wide range of quality music availible but if the system collapses that will change. The volume may look bigger but the quality will go down. Not everyone can or wants to tour so if live performances are the only source of revenue then the landscape will change. What are film makers supposed to do? Live performances of the next Star Wars movie? Not that there is a next one. The point is not everyone has the option of live performance so if the revenue dries up so will the content. Also saying fools like me will pay so why should you is a pretty sleazy attitude. I know it'll get modded down but I get sick of the whole fight. Rationalize it but this is about is justifying free downloading and shafting the artists.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Hoi Polloi]

U2 and Roger Waters are just looking out for the futures of their great-great-great-granchildren and the corporations for which we stand.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

I agree we need to protect artists rights (I'm a musician, and am currently recording a cd). However, the current copyright is simply ridiculous. Life plus 75 years (US)? 95 for corporate works (US)? That's out of line.

What I'd like to see is: 25 years. One renewal for an additional 20. That gives 45 years total. If you haven't made enough off of something in in 45 years, tough shit. Do something new.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Abcd1234]

This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information.

And I'm shocked you misunderstand copyright so fundamentally. The function of copyright is to provide artists with protection for their works. The theory is that this stimulates the creation of new works, thus enriching society. And *that* is the benefit to society at large (the creation of new works). Thus, the idea that "copyright does NOT exist to benefit you" is flat out ridiculous.

The problem is that extending copyrights will likely do nothing to spur creation of new works. All it will likely do is place more power in the hands of corporations and the rich, who can afford to litigate to ensure their works are suitably protected. Meanwhile, if the extension the retroactive (as was the extension introduced in the Sonny Bono Act), materials from the public domain will be *removed*, which amounts to theft, IMHO.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Dr Reducto]

So if it's really about helping artists not get screwed over, maybe target record companies instead of increasing copyright.

Record companies are somehow able to sell a million records and still have the artists owe THEM money after all that. That's a much more real problem than lost sales.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cduffy]

At least in the US, what you're saying is at odds with the documented intent of those who added the Copyright Clause to the Constitution. Their intent was to encourage creation of new works and inventions -- and by doing so, to benefit the public at large. Do copyright and patent laws benefit artists and inventors? Absolutely. Should they be written with the artists and inventors in mind, as opposed to the wellbeing of the general public? No. The goal, as immortalized in the Constitution (and more extensively documented in Jefferson's notes) is "to promote the arts and sciences" -- a matter of public good -- rather than the private benefit of those who are more immediate beneficiaries.

I think it exceedingly unfortunate that our lawmakers have forgotten this.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Hoi Polloi]

Why should he (or his estate) retain any rights after he is dead? He's profited handsomly for many decades. At some point they have to stop sucking on the teet of work they did 50+ years ago. He may not like it but the laws should serve society as a whole and not just the recording industry.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Lumpy]

I care some.. If we don't protect the artists rights then we are effectively discouraging people from creating art.

you are 100% correct. As we all know art, music, and literature did not exist before copyright laws.

That is the world you believe you live in.... It's very different from reality where artists create in spite of copyright.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Hijacked Public]

For the most part art criticism methods that require some knowledge of the artists motivation or intent when creating a work have been rejected on the basis that the art object itself should be judged on its own merits.

Regardless, virtually all artists seek a reward of some kind. Often it is financial but just as often it is something less quantifiable. Recognition, fame, self expression.

If all you mean is that more money can be made by selling minor variations of the same crap over and over again versus new original stuff, I'd have to agree.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Hoi Polloi]

If you can't profit well from your work in 50 years then 90 years isn't going to help you. I don't see how the possibility of 50 years of profits is going to turn away anyone from creating art. The thing that discourages people is the likelyhood of making any money no matter what the copyright period is.

IP laws aren't God given rights, they are just laws. Lifetime exclusive ownership is a flimsy proposition and any time after that is corporate gouging.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[drinkypoo]

All I'm arguing is that copyright does NOT exist to benefit you, unless you have created something you wish to have protected via copyright. Rather, it exists to protect the artist FROM you.

I think you're pretty much missing the point of copyright. Having some copyright can benefit you even if you do not create content by providing motivation to other people to create the kind of works that are covered by copyright.

Yes, the law should protect both the majority and the minority. Copyright DOES protect creators of content, and thus it does serve them. However, as a result, it also serves the populace. Protecting, say, child molesters would protect a minority, but at the expense of the majority, which is why we don't do that. There is no benefit to society for protecting child molesters.

This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information.

I'm not particularly shocked but I am somewhat dismayed that you don't understand what copyright law is actually for. It's not primarily for the protection of the creators of content - that's simply how copyright law's goals are achieved.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[drinkypoo]

I know it's a troll point of view at /. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system. It isn't greed on their part trying to cheat you out of some implied right of free downloads. If you're taking their work who's cheating here?

This isn't about taking their work. This is about preventing copyright from being extended past the fifty year mark at which it currently resides in the UK, which is already too long.

I know it'll get modded down but I get sick of the whole fight. Rationalize it but this is about is justifying free downloading and shafting the artists.

You should get modded down as offtopic. This isn't what we're talking about at all. We're talking about how long copyright should be, not whether it should be - that's a separate conversation.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[coastwalker]

You will be retired when your copyright expires, what do you want the money for - to feed the businesses that actually make money out of your copyrighted work? This is just stupid, half the problem with modern musical art is that its warped into appalling crap by the businesses that make money out of the genre. Do we want to put more art into their hands? I dont think so. It may be tough to make money in the music business for the artists but I dont think we are going to help them by handing yet more influence to the mega corps that the artists are forced to work for by handing out hundred year copyright for them to manage.

As for Paul Mcartney, he must be making a lot of money out of performing and I doubt that hes going to stop earning from his early work before he is dead in any case.

None of this makes any sense to me unless you regard music as a commodity like real estate - and if it has become just a commodity like real estate then I'm not surprised that nobody is buying it any more because it obviously has no meaning and is therefore pointless and dead. Maybe thats the real reason they want to extend copyright - they know that all the decent music with any value to the punters was made 50 years ago and more money is being made out of it than any of the latest big promotions?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[s20451]

you are 100% correct. As we all know art, music, and literature did not exist before copyright laws. That is the world you believe you live in.... It's very different from reality where artists create in spite of copyright.

Get a better argument. DVD burners and the internet did not exist before copyright. Neither did the printing press, nor science as we know it today, for that matter.

In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Yaztromo]

I know it's a troll point of view at /. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system.

And you think that extending copyright by another 45 years is going to make these struggling artists struggle any less?

Just because you create content doesn't mean that you deserve a big pile of money set at your doorstep for life. In terms of music, some songs are hits, but a huge majority are forgettable, and won't make the artist much of anything after five years. Some songs become classics -- but really, if you haven't made money off of your song after 50 years, then you probably never will.

As such, extending copyright by another 45 years isn't going to benefit the "struggling artist". They'll keep struggling, or give up and do something else with their life. Under the current system in the UK, a 15-year-old who creates something will get to hold the copyright on it until they are 65. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and if their song is a dud when they are 15, chances are pretty low that it will suddenly become a smash sensation when they're 65.

So for all of your "Please, think of the struggling artists!" mantra, no, tihs sort of change doesn't benefit anyone but the McCartney's of this world.

Yaz.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Dog-Cow]

YES! It's nothing but greed. If I were a master carpenter and hand-crafted a piece of furniture, I could sell it exactly one time, though it might survive for hundreds of years as a valuable antique. My descendents might never see the piece, much less profit from it.

Copyright allows people who have never produced anything but piss and crap to leech money for work their grandparents did. That is nothing but greed.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Dog-Cow]

"I know it's a troll point of view at /. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system."

This article is talking about term extenstions. Copyrights already last until after death. Extending copyrights won't help someone who still holds the copyright after they starve to death.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[professionalfurryele]

"out of some implied right of free downloads"

The right you describe does exist, it is the natural state of things, and is called the right to access ones cultural heritage.

Think of all music ever written AND released to the public at large as a National Park. In principle everyone should be able to go use the National Park as and when they wish. The big difference is the National Park doesn't constantly just get bigger, as if by magic. But if it could, and we could incentivise people to make it bigger, perhaps through some invented right, then you bet your arse we would. But that doesn't mean people have a right to make a living extending the public park if they suck at it. Nor does it mean that they have a right to keep little bits of the park for themselves, no matter how much work they put into creating it.

Copyright is essentially a means to enhance the public domain. It is all very well to talk about struggling artists, but there are also plenty of struggling football players. We don't try to change the law to help people who are not very good at football.

I think what is needed is copyright terms in the region of 10-25 years for music. A good way to encourage the movie industry might be to build in a clause that if $X dollars are spent on producing a work, then the copyright may be extended by 10 years.

50 years is too long as it stands. No one has a right to a living. I don't go to my funding agency and start demanding that I should be funded for 50 years because I have a Investigating the Universe Property Right.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[PingSpike]

I think 50 years or death, the longer of the two would be fair. That way if some one died of a drug overdose a year after he hit it big his family would still be provided for.

But you say that only a select few manage to make a reasonable living, but thats just the way it works. There's only room for so many musicians and artists in the world...and we need a lot more truck drivers, nurses, garbage collectors, etc. When some one becomes a starving artists they're either driven by some need to create that can't be ignored (in which case copyright is moot, they were going to do this anyway) or they're betting on themselves. They're betting they're good enough to beat the odds. If it was easy to 'make it' as a musician then everyone would do it...but lets face it, no one wants to buy the CD of every crappy garage band that ever existed.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[DragonWriter]

I care some.. If we don't protect the artists rights then we are effectively discouraging people from creating art. Being a musician today is already a dicey proposition at best.

Have the term of copyright be 20, or 50, or 75, or life+75 years won't change that; the majority of creative works makes most of the money they will make in the first few years after they are created; the ones that continue making money after that tend to also be the ones that are wildly successful initially.

Whether mega-successful artists (if they manage to keep the rights out of the hands of someone else in the first place, which may be hard if they want to get a distribution deal) can have their children and grandchildren live off their work doesn't make much difference to whether struggling artists can make a living in the field (actually, if older works go into the public domain sooner, it may make it easier for creators of new works to sell them, as exclusive content will always have value, and shorter copyright terms means that to keep a library of exclusive content, you'll have to buy more new content from creators, so if it makes a difference, it may be in the opposite of the direction you seem to suggest.)

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[drinkypoo]

In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?

I identified this as a logical fallacy almost immediately but now I'm having a hard time figuring out which one it is. Looks like my bullshitometer is working nicely today, but it's not very specific.

Look, this is a bunch of horse shit because in distant history, the only people who had any money were the church, the state, and the aristocracy. Today, half of the wealth is in the hands of 2% of the population, but I suspect this is dramatically less than, say, in any feudal society you care to think of. The other fifty percent is out there in the hands of the unwashed masses like myself (though I did shower this morning) and some of that is available for doing things like buying music. In fact, that is where the music industry gets its money so obviously your logic, well, isn't.

I guess the logical fallacy you've stumbled across is either a false dilemma. The GP points out that media existed before copyright. The alternative you present is that all art would be commissioned and thus controlled by the people who commissioned it before copyright existed. But this is simply not true. There are currently people out making music without the assistance of major labels, and even without asserting their copyrights. That's right, there's people out there who have never filed and will never file a copyright claim and are still making a living with their music.

Also, in the time of antiquity, there was a fairly significant number of people running around making music for a living and not being paid by one of those three groups; notably bards and troubadours (the difference apparently being that bards are primarily messengers and the preservers of culture through music, the oral tradition; troubadours are more purely entertainers.) So there are counterexamples even in your own day. Did they tend to get rich? Assuredly not.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[giorgiofr]

You know, there are people out there who know full well that they are simply being cheap when they d/l tons of music or movies for free. Oh yes, unlicensed anime are not available in my country so I'm justified in downloading them... good corner case. Everything else, though, is pure and simple theft, motivated by a perceived lack of victims and virtual impunity.
But nobody wants to shaft the artists - in fact, some might even buy special editions of their works after years of piracy, or support them by buying merchandising etc. And most people just plain don't care.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever make you sleep at night.

I know THOUSANDS of artists that put their art to the public domain. All real artists create for the cake of creation not Money.

Lumpy is right, The illiad, beowulf, and many MANY other stories were written before copyright. Songwriters throughout time performed their music for money and other bards played others songs that others wrote. Most all Irish songs were happily spread around.

Maybe if you actually knew any history you would have known this.

Hell plays in midevial england were copied by other theatres on opening night. Shakespear's plays were dont in other troops weeks after he opened because "spies" were in the audience copying the dialogue the first few nights.

All artists knew and expected this, only greedy assholes pushed for copyright.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[DragonWriter]

In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons.

...who in turn used their work and its popularity to advance their own financial, political, or other interests.

Now, they are paid by wealthy record companies, publishing houses, and wealthy individual patrons, who use the work and its popularity to further their own financial, political, and other interests.

Copyright sure changed a lot!

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Duds]

I doubt anyone is going to murder an artist in order to legally pirate, assuming that's your point I don't get the reference.

But ok, how about "Till death but a minimum of 50 years"?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[DragonWriter]

I know it's a troll point of view at /. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system.

And extending copyright terms helps people who can't make money with a 50-year copyright term how, exactly?

Extending copyright terms helps (if any artists), the most successful under the current system, and by reducing the need for recording companies and other gatekeepers of the artistic world to make deals with new artists to get exclusive content, hurts those artists that are currently are marginal.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[EllisDees]

Yes, it is greedy, as the 'right' to control your work is nothing but a construct of the government - supposedly to benefit society as a whole. Taking from the public that which is the other end of the bargain for an additional 40 years is certainly greedy!

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[s20451]

Yes, I agree I was being lazy, but so is everyone else in this thread.

Nobody asks the right questions about copyright. These arguments which revolve around "people will still make art" are mostly nonsense, because they ignore both the quantity, quality, and cultural significance of art. Of course people will still write and perform music even if they can't do it as their day job. But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.

Again using a historical example, the better question is: how many artists currently recognized as "important" (from as far back as you care to look) were primarily engaged in a career other than music? The answer is almost none.

Which leads to a second question. In the absence of copyright, is it possible for a culturally significant number of musicians to make music their primary career?

The answer is that I don't know, and I'm not sure anybody else does, either. I don't consider singer/songwriter types in this equation. I like a lot of classical music, including contemporary classical ... I know a lot of composers who barely eke out an existence as it is, who would lose a valuable source of revenue in the absence of copyright. These are culturally important people who can't charge for performances or sell T-shirts.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[maxume]

Going even further, copyright exists to promote sharing more than creation. I can protect information by keeping it secret; copyright encourages me to share it instead, but offering alternative protection.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[s20451]

I don't normally respond to AC's, but your post is so truly awesome that I just felt the need.

All real artists create for the cake of creation not Money.

The vast majority of influential artists create professionally. Are they doing it for money? Also, you're using the "true Scotsman" fallacy: "All true Scotsmen like porridge." "My daddy is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like porridge." "Then he's not a true Scotsman."

The illiad, beowulf, and many MANY other stories were written before copyright.

Once again. If you have to use the state of the world more than 1000 years ago to make an argument, then I win by default. And at no time did I say that art would not be produced without copyright.

Songwriters throughout time performed their music for money and other bards played others songs that others wrote.

What argument are you making here? This happens today. Copyright does not prevent it.

Shakespear's plays were dont in other troops weeks after he opened because "spies" were in the audience copying the dialogue the first few nights.

In your world:

• There is no room for an author. There is only an author/producer. You have shrunk the market for art.
  
• Everything has to be kept secret until it is performed. Information is not freely shared, which contradicts your earlier point.
  
• People spell the names of famous artists incorrectly.
  

Ah, that was fun. I'm going back to work now.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[drinkypoo]

These are culturally important people who can't charge for performances or sell T-shirts.

No, but they can charge artists for their compositions. And the artists can charge for performances and sell T-shirts. If it's not worth it to the artist to pay for the material, then it's probably not worth it for society to support the composer.

You do not have a right to make a profit. Asking for legislation to protect, support, or create a business model that cannot otherwise succeed is not reasonable in the long term unless you can show that it provides a significant benefit to society. The specific composers you are talking about might not be able to make it in such a system. They might have to get a different job in order to pay their bills. That's sad for them, but it's not necessarily a bad thing for society.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Znork]

"The answer is almost none."

Actually, I'd suspect the answer is most. The vast majority of actual artists and writers do not get much out of the current system; the current system is heavily biased towards those who can buy the commercial channels like radio, do media blitzes and appropriate the vast majority of capital flowing in through various copyright related levies. Many artists and artists/composers gain most income through touring; something they'd actually get more money out of if they didnt have to compete with the conglomerate media machines.

And frankly, I find the idea that whoever can afford to buy the most media coverage is the most 'important' abhorrent; as would, I suspect, pretty much everyone who actually looks up their music rather than get it fed to them.

"In the absence of copyright, is it possible for a culturally significant number of musicians to make music their primary career?"

As many artists are today making music as a career without significant copyright related revenue, why shouldnt they?

And nobody is saying we need to get rid of methods of paying artists; removing copyright could very well be accompanied by instead taxing the media companies (and anyone else actually making money off the sales of music), effectively replacing the crap contracts most artists get with a much higher mandatory percentage of end sales revenue, thus both increasing revenue to artists and composers while restoring competition in the production and distribution chains. Consumers and artists would both win.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[NormalVisual]

The problem is that extending copyrights will likely do nothing to spur creation of new works

It also doesn't allow existing works to become part of the body of art which current and future artists can draw from for inspiration. There's absolutely no good reason that someone shouldn't be able to go out and hack on or cover Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", for instance. The music is more than 30 years old, the group of people that created that artisic work doesn't exist anymore, and sales from that album do absolutely zero to encourage more works at this point - there hasn't been a Floyd album released in almost 13 years, and there aren't too many visible on the horizon.

The ridiculous terms do nothing to benefit the greater good, which should have been the only factor to look at when the extensions were considered. The financial well being of any single artist or company pales in comparison to the cultural damage being done to the rest of society.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[C0rinthian]

I doubt it. I want to listen to music made by people who are driven to create great art without regard for the rewards. There is already far too much mediocre music out there created by the careerist types you seem to want to encourage. Yeah, whatever happened to amazing musicians like Bach? Owait, he wrote his music on commission for various churches. Sellout.

Creators who can't make a living off their creations either don't create, or don't survive. If you think the great artists of the past created the things they did solely for the artistic value, you're very naive. You think the Sistine Chapel was done as a favor?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[C0rinthian]

Personally, I have no problems with artists retaining rights to their works at least until death. Corporate ownership is a load of crap, however.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[idamaybrown]

As opposed to the greed of the people who don't want to bother writing anything original and just want to make money off of someone else's work.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[C0rinthian]

If you can't profit well from your work in 50 years then 90 years isn't going to help you. I don't see how the possibility of 50 years of profits is going to turn away anyone from creating art. If you are an artist who is significantly progressive (ahead of the times) 50 years may not be nearly enough for your works to be recognized by the general population. Hell, it's possible noone will notice your work until after you're in the ground. It's happened before...

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[drinkypoo]

As opposed to the greed of the people who don't want to bother writing anything original and just want to make money off of someone else's work.

Well, let's be clear on who we're talking about here. The 4,500 artists in favor of extending copyright are in favor of it for one of two reasons. Either they hold the copyright on a bunch of works which are old and yet still producing revenue, or they are in the pocket of the BPI (much as many artists are in the pocket of the RIAA here, the primary example on the 'net being Metallica) and they have been informed that if they don't come out in favor of copyright extension there will be consequences.

The first group of artists is contributing to the lack of innovation in music, keeping us in the past simply by being able to continue making money off of that music. If copyright is extended, then this trend will only be more pronounced. The second group is less objectionable but still part of the problem because they are helping the BPI maintain control.

Either way, all of the artists supporting copyright extension are in the same camp with BPI, the camp which you describe with one sentence in your comment.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[NewWorldDan]

Personally, I blame the French. As near as I can tell, it's the French that gave us the concept of "Moral rights to a work." Or, the idea that once you create something, it's wrong for anyone else to ever touch it. That and Mickey Mouse pretty much explains the current state of copyright around the world. Just once, I'd like to see one of those spoiled billionaires come out and say, "The public domain is a good thing. I look forward to seeing the world enjoy my art unfettered by the chains of major media organizations." But they're all greedy bastards, so much better to not extend copyright.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[geekoid]

based on the number, you could cut that in ahlf, and all but the top 100 artists would get exactly the same amount of money. I say 14 years, then that's it.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[BoberFett]

Not to mention the complete loss of huge bodies of creative works. Society has lost large amounts of early films because the reels simply deteriorated in the basement of some studio. Why was it locked up in a damp basement closet? Because even a century later those studios are protecting their precious "intellectual property".

Even works created today will likely be lost in mass quantities due to the desire to keep everything locked up under copyright. At the end of this century, how many DVD players do you think will be around? My guess is close to none. Under absurd copyright terms such as Life+70 (potentially 150 years) the only viable copies in existence when those works do fall into the public domain will belong to the copyright holders. So unless the copyright holder is still actively promoting those works, they'll just disappear. Yeah, I'm sure they'll still be selling Star Wars and Titanic in 100 years, but lesser works will simply be forgotten because the only place they exist is on a DVD that hasn't been watched since great grandma's DVD player broke in 2015 and the master copy that's on a hard drive in a server in the studio that hasn't worked in just as long.

If copyright expired in a reasonable amount of time, say 25 years, there would be lots of people who would archive their favorite works and make sure they survived the transitions to new media.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Guppy06]

"Copyright laws are (intended) to protect THEIR rights"

Granted, we're talking about UK law, but in the US at least, from TFConstitution (emphasis mine):

The Congress shall have power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries(.)

The end-goal of US copyright law isn't to give the creators money, but to give them money in pursuit of the end-goal of advancing science and art. In light of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the only purpose that federal copyright and patent law could pursue is in promoting the arts and science, and copyright laws going beyond that intent are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has decided that "Is progress being promoted here?" is a political, rather than a legal, question.

"This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information."

The UK is an entirely different matter, but here in the US, our federal constitution ain't exactly Tolstoy. Even the Federalist Papers (aka TFM) are, altogether, a reasonably short length. So why do you believe that what parent posted was "completely misleading?"

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Woldry]

# People spell the names of famous artists incorrectly.

I agree with your general points, but I had to jump on this one. It's amusing that you picked on the spelling of "Shakespeare", considering the well-documented history of the variant spellings even in the Bard's day (and even by the Bard himself, by some accounts).

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[lenester]

I've seen one reasonable argument for maintaining copyright even if only the record labels receive the money.

The gist is that it's very expensive to scout and publish new talent, and it's a gamble on top of that—you get more duds than hits. Residual royalties from old best-sellers create a buffer, allowing labels to range farther afield and publish long shots who might otherwise be passed over as too risky; this in turn makes it easier for new artists to enter the industry.

Cynicism will answer that the corporate publishers in question will funnel that money to shareholders and executives rather than edgy new talent, and (US) corporate law would seem to enforce this view. Still, it's a very compelling argument, and "responsibility to the shareholders" includes the responsibility to create new properties as older ones devaluate, so the methodology of the corporate machine doesn't completely negate its practical application.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[LordSnooty]

Do you really think that for example someone will decide not to become a pro drummer despite their obvious prowess, because they remember that 50 years down the line they stop receiving some arcane payment which by that time will have depreceated to almost nothing anyway?

So Bono & co have to put some of their money away in a pension. Just like I do. In fact, the royalties are their pension. 50 years is quite enough I think. I have trouble stomaching what I read from these artists. They're simply taking the opportunity of the Gowers review to try and enshrine this ludicrous change, it's almost a case of 'fair enough, nice try'... I'm so pleased that the review ruled it out explicitly. Now we have to make sure that the Government stick to this advice. This is where the real battle starts.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

Some things are useless after a few years, some things cost megabucks to make and payoff slowly.

To be honest, in 99.44% of cases, you're going to make the vast majority of all the money you will ever make from a work, almost immediately. For example, most ticket sales for a movie occur within the first week or two of its release in theathers. Most DVD sales of that movie occur within the first week or two of its release in stores. And by most, I mean 80-90%. The remaining years and years and years are just to wring out the small amount that's left. IIRC, the average value for a given author of the CTEA extension in the US from life+50 to life+70 (or 75 to 95) was a nickel.

Some works, of course, and I mean a very very rare few, are worth incredible amounts for very long spans of time. But making one of those works is about as common as winning the lottery. While the lottery winners might like their situation, I think it's more important to deal with the big picture, and that means with a hell of a lot of works that are worthless, and a small amount that are reasonable valuable, but still not super-valuable.

better enforcement

Against whom? I for one would like to see copyright no longer be applied against ordinary people acting noncommercially. It's not as though it's respected in that field anyway. Businesses and commercial contexts would still be relevant, though.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

No we're not. Less copyright is not a discouragement. It is just less of an artificial encouragement.

By analogy, if Alice gives her child $20 to mow the lawn, and Bob just tells his child to mow the lawn, then Bob isn't trying to discourage his child, he just isn't bribing his child.

Copyright is a bribe. It is meant to get artists to do something that they wouldn't do otherwise. It's actually inappropriate to give copyrights to artists when they would create a work anyway. It's wasteful. And at some point, the bribe can be excessive. Would Alice give her child $2,000 to mow the lawn? Of course not. The child would love it, but it's inappropriate. She could get a gardener to come do it instead for far less. Likewise, excessive copyrights are a dumb idea, because no matter how much the artist might like them (and no matter how much people would be motivated to become artists instead of doing something else), it's simply going to cost the public far more than it's worth. In the end, copyright should only be granted when, and to an extent, that best serves the public interest. If that's not enough for some people, well, tough. Giving them more would by definition be against the public interest. Why should the public support that?

I feel like an artist should retain ownership of their creations until death, plus however many years the law decides after that.

And I think that's grossly excessive. Somewhere on the order of 20ish years is probably better, and shorter if possible (e.g. by only granting copyrights when asked, and only for a few years before requiring them to ask again, by which we can weed out people who are disinterested). Studies indicate that few artists would quit and go into other fields, since the economic rewards would be about the same, but that there'd be less of a burden to society because so much less protection would be granted.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

Creators who can't make a living off their creations either don't create, or don't survive.

That's not true at all. Look at Wallace Stevens. One of the greatest 20th century poets, and he made his money working for an insurance company. What you said is true of some artists, but not all of them. In fact, there are plenty of ways to make money as an artist that have nothing to do with copyright. I know, having done it for some years before going back to school to switch professions (and not for economic reasons). I made a living as artistic labor, making creative works for clients that also didn't care about copyrights, but just wanted the works to use. I made money from labor, no differently than a plumber or an assembly-line worker, not from my works.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

Get a better argument. DVD burners and the internet did not exist before copyright. Neither did the printing press, nor science as we know it today, for that matter.

Get some facts: The printing press was invented around 1440-1450. Copyright as we know it (rather than as mere official censorship) was invented in 1710, and then, only in England. It took a long while to spread, with many countries not having copyright until the 19th and 20th centuries.

In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?

Actually, they're paid by wealthy patrons now. They just have many many more patrons, and they pay less per head. What do you think concert-goers are?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.

So? Copyright is meant to encourage quantity, not quality. A lot of contemporary music sucks too. In fact, it's well known that 90% of everything is crap. The only way to get more of the good stuff is to beef up the total quantity, since it's really not possible to change the underlying ratios (which are probably even worse than 90:10).

Production values not only cost less and less all the time, but they play a rather small role in whether a work is good or not.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

And? The point is whether you will have a monetary incentive to create the works or not. If a man from the future told you that your book would not sell a single copy until the year 2500, at which time it would become more popular than the Bible, and that you were going to die in the year 2050, would the money that you would never ever see serve as an incentive to you? Would the knowledge that, with a long copyright, your ancestors in the year 2500 would be rich, while you'd be in the ground, make you want to start typing right now?

No.

If money is your incentive, then you can count on (in well over 99% of cases) making the vast majority of all you'll ever make, almost immediately. If you haven't gotten a million dollars in a year or two, you pretty certainly never will, not from that work. This is the reality of the economic value of creative works. Everyone in the industry knows it. It's why movies that don't make money in a week or two at the box office are flops, it's why TV shows with poor demographics are dropped within weeks, it's why most publishers (in any field, movies, music, books, etc.) can and do reject most everything that gets submitted to them, because they have a good eye for whether something will be immediately profitable or never profitable.

There are exceptions, but they're as rare as hens' teeth, with worse odds than just buying lottery tickets instead of having created the work in the first place.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

That doesn't make it not greedy. It just means that you or I would also be greedy if only we had something to be greedy about. Personally, I don't care if he's greedy. It doesn't make him a bad person to my eyes. But if he can be greedy, then I can be greedy too. And in my position, my greed is for getting his music in the public domain and then getting it for free or at least minimal cost. Both our positions are valid. But there's only one of him, and everyone else is in the same boat as me.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cpt kangarooski]

It's actually not a good enough reason. That's just saying that the people should have to bear the costs of the publishing industry by means of a monopoly, because they have a craptastic business model that amounts to gambling wildly. The superior argument is to not let them ride so long on successful works, as an impetus to developing a better idea of what works are a good investment and what aren't. Right now, they don't suffer from failure, and it shows.

Of course, if you stick with this, why is that argument no good for me? Why can't I demand that everyone pay me a dollar a year because I'm bad at my job?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[ThatsNotFunny]

What about songs where a corporation owns the copyright?

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Duds]

50 years.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Dun Malg]

Not to mention the complete loss of huge bodies of creative works. Society has lost large amounts of early films because the reels simply deteriorated in the basement of some studio. Why was it locked up in a damp basement closet? Because even a century later those studios are protecting their precious "intellectual property". An interesting related factoid: 108 of the 253 episodes from the first 6 years of Doctor Who were lost between 1967 and 1978 when penny pinching bureaucrats at the BBC either taped over them rather than buying more tapes, or threw them away rather than arranging for more storage. Some of these episodes have been recovered from BBC affiliates in other countries who kept some their copies, but the primary source for reconstructing them is from fans who captured all the audio from every episode on tape, and a few who also captured some of the video on Super-8mm or early video tape machines.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[thogard]

They mention 4500 artists and many of them haven't done anything in years.
A few years ago a Melbourne radio station had a contest where bands could send them a CD for some prize. Their listening area was about 3 million people and they got 3000 albums. Their rules required that at least one song not be a cover and the CD had to have been made in the previous year. That would imply that for every 1000 people, you would have at least 1 band that made an album with at least one original song in the last year. Now multiply that by the population of the countries that give us popular music and you end up with English speaking countries making over 400,000 new albums a year. Sure lots of them will be bad but how many are good if more than few under people every get a chance to hear them? The 4500 artists at the top are worried about those number and the RIAA is deathly afraid of that many new albums entering their marketplace and are doing everything in their power to stop it.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[lenester]

The point is that works which are (relatively speaking) not a good investment, often have greater artistic merit than those which are easy sells. There is no shortage today of Disney idols, who lose relevance after three years and fall off the radar but are replaced immediately. If squeezed, the industry could run on nothing but manufactured pop, and show better profits. If they "suffered from failure" as you propose, that is exactly what they would do. Removing their ability to take risks would lose us the diamonds, not the sand.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

What I'd like to see is: 25 years. One renewal for an additional 20. That gives 45 years total.

If we want to strike a balance between an artist's right to make a living off their IP and a healthy public domain, we need to make a copyright term that is long enough so that most records would be out of copyright by the time their sales drop to insignificant levels. Most music created these days have a store shelf life of (at absolute maximum) about 10 years. The exceptions (i.e. the classics) will be so ingrained into public culture that it would simply be copyright-holder greed at the expense of public culture.

I guess what I'm saying is that 45 years is far too long.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[cliffski]

some products have that 'long tail' effect when they sell for a good few years. You are describing a blockbuster, but thankfully not everything is a blockbuster. Some ooks games and albums will sell modestly for maybe 5-10 years, and good luck to them.

Of course copyright has to be enforced against the ordinary person. its the ordinary person who is the customer. Who else do you think you enforce it against?
I'd like to see better enforcement taken against websites that list copyrighted torrents and host illegal files knowingly. The premise that "the actual torrent isnt copyrighted" might be a great legal loophole, but it doesn't ring true as a moral defence against what you are doing. Site listing nothing but downloads of the latest songs and movies are just asking for trouble, and deserve to be prosecuted.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that extending copyrights will likely do nothing to spur creation of new works. In the past I would have agreed with you.

But clearly, artists these days have stopped creating works of art. Look at the recent catalogues of all the record labels. You have to agree - there is no art in there, and it very well could have something to do with the lack of incentive.

Why should I create a work when I only get seven to ten decades of royalties, and when I must hand out those royalties back to a corporate 3rd party? Why should I even bother? Instead, I'd rather focus on working down at McDonalds, which will give be three or four or five decades of regular, consistant wages.

Re:Who cares what the artists want?

[b.burl]

Like all debates, the definition of terms must be agreed upon. Are you talking about 'artists' as technicians, entertainers, craftsmans, and other low level journeymen-types?

Or are you talking about people with genius and inspiration? You know the view that some people have to follow their muses and engage in overwhelming creation that transcend the banal world of taxes, roi's, backend deals, merchandising rights, etc.?

An ad to tell the public what they want

[dysk]

a host of musicians (over 4,500 of them, including poor, starving stars such as U2, Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel) have taken out a big ad in the FT to back the call for an extension to copyright in the UK. Allegedly, that's what the British public wants

I guess the starving musicians have to spend big money take out an ad to tell the public what they already want.

Re:An ad to tell the public what they want

[mikesd81]

ugh I know this is an old story and I saw it meta moderating. But for U2 to be broke and starving is the most insane thing I've ever read. Some musicians are just hypocritical morons.

Lessig Blog: Signed by dead artists

[wsherman]

From Lawrence Lessig's blog:

As reported yesterday, there was an ad in the FT listing 4,000 musicians who supported retrospective term extension. If you read the list, you'll see that at least some of these artists are apparently dead (e.g. Lonnie Donegan, died 4th November 2002; Freddie Garrity, died 20th May 2006). I take it the ability of these dead authors to sign a petition asking for their copyright terms to be extended can only mean that even after death, term extension continues to inspire.

Re:Lessig Blog: Signed by dead artists

[Don_dumb]

Oh my god, they actually copied Sideshow Bob. Ironically that means they have violated Fox's copyright on the Simpsons.

Sue em' Digger.

(c)

[telchine]

If copyright was outlawed, only outlaws would have copyright, right?

Even more misleadinger

[Anonymous Coward]

The question whether they thought UK recording artists "should be protected for the same number of years as their American counterparts" is even more misleading than the article implies. UK recording artists have exactly the same length of copyright IN THE UK as their American counterparts and exactly the same length of copyright IN THE USA as their American counterparts. UK and American recording artists are treated identically in each market. The two markets have different rules but neither discriminates in the way the question implies.

They also weren't asked whether the UK term should be increased or the USA term decreased. Or whether both should be decreased.

"Fair play for musicians"

[A beautiful mind]

That's what the advert says. It's almost correct. Let me fix it.

Fair use for people.

Re:"Fair play for musicians"

[danpsmith]

Fair use for people.

You know, fair use has pretty much gone down the toilet. With the modernization of copyright law things have changed without real public consent. The truth of the matter is that music used to be a free trade type of deal, spread mainly by spoken word. Now the RIAA has taken even the ability to make tabs based on listening to albums and make those tabs public. The RIAA essentially wants to kill word of mouth or folk style passage of music.

When I began writing a bit of a book I'd been working on, I was tempted, like James Joyce does to include modern song lyrics in the book itself. James Joyce did this with old Irish songs, but if you think about it, in Ireland, around the time the book takes place, those were the time and place's defining anthems. Nowadays, if I want to include lyrics to a song as being something played in an establishment the character is in, I'd probably have to pay a licensing fee for the lyrics. Songs have become corporate only entities, and the joy of music has truly been passed without anyone looking to stop and see what they missed.

Tag suggestion

[Mad Dog Manley]

Tag: copywrong

U2 = hypocrites?

[TheWoozle]

Or will they donate all their posthumous royalties to that AIDS-in-Africa cause that they're always on about?

Re:U2 = hypocrites?

[A beautiful mind]

U2's AIDS-in-Africa cause seems to be like the standard answer on a beauty contest: "world peace".

Re:U2 = hypocrites?

[urbanradar]

I'm for a reasonable copyright term - that is, against copyright extension. But I don't get what you're trying to say here.

What exactly is it you mean? The members of U2 have been talking about AIDS in Africa a lot, so they should be against copyright extension? The members of U2 have been talking about AIDS in Africa a lot, so they shouldn't want to make more money off their music? Or do you mean that U2 shouldn't care about AIDS in Africa if they want to make money off their music? Or perhaps you mean to say that it's not allowed to have a sociable opinion on one issue and an egoistic opinion on another?

Seems like two entirely unrelated things to me.

Re:U2 = hypocrites?

[Guppy06]

"Seems like two entirely unrelated things to me."

I wouldn't say that. Both pertain to U2's public image, what they as performing artists rely on for their livelihood. There may be a philosophical argument to be made that one shouldn't be tied to the other, but the reality of the situation that there are some fans of U2 and their altruistic image that will be turned away by this new side of U2 being published in FT, and that will be a detriment to their record sales (though I don't doubt they'll make up the loss from others). If nothing else, I can see it causing people to pay more attention to the distribution of charitable moneys collected through U2's actions, much the same way the scandal following 9/11 caused people to take a closer look at how the American Red Cross operates.

More directly, talking about AIDS in Africa often means talking about drug patents. It seems disingenuous that U2 might say how patents on AIDS drugs should be violated but the IP laws most near and dear to them should be extended.

Re:U2 = hypocrites?

[BoberFett]

It's a bit of a stretch, but I can see where the GP takes issue with U2 bemoaning the plight of the poor while at the same time trying to wring every last dollar out their fans. If U2 does indeed plan to give any additional profits to the poor it would at least be a worthwhile cause. If they're just trying to ensure that their grandchildren are able to snort coke off of hookers in the back of gold plated limos, they are being somewhat hypocritical.

Re:U2 = hypocrites?

[SeattleGameboy]

By endorsing copyright extensions, U2's complete hypocracy is exposed.

Bono goes around meeting world leaders begging for drug patents to be not enforced in Africa so that they can make cheap AIDS drugs available. YET when it is something that they own, they are not willing to share with the public.

I would say that is a classic case of talking out of their arse.

This is doubly true when they say they are for the poor and the working class and then moves out of Ireland when they raise the income tax.

Seriously, everything Bono/U2 does for AIDS campaign is nothing more than a PR campaign to sell more records.

Re:U2 = hypocrites?

[urbanradar]

...or maybe U2 just happen to think that wanting to make as much money out of their own music as possible isn't on the same level as letting thousands and thousands of people in poverty die from a disease every week for legal reasons.

how sad

[joe 155]

I'm disapointed that YouGov would agree to carry out a poll like this, I fear they are essentially becoming hired guns in any flame war you need stats for...

Paul McCartney's just scared...

[aliendisaster]

Paul McCartney's just scared he's going to lose more songs to Michael Jackson.

Re:Paul McCartney's just scared...

[SpecBear]

Well if he just supported shorter copyright terms, he and everyone else could be freely enjoying his old music now.

Re:Paul McCartney's just scared...

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Yeah. I think Macca would like to have his songs "back" that way. As a human being, he might secretly be for this.
Unfortunately, he has strong ties with a corporation. I doubt the UK will pass a law shortening all copyrights except ones held by "McCartney Publications Limited Communications." (Though you never know.)

Is there an easily accessible list of who signed?

[A beautiful mind]

So that I can conveniently never buy _anything_ from them again.

Greedy old fools

[GbrDead]

It seems that Mark Chapman actually made a favour to John Lennon... by killing him before he had a chance to become a greedy old fool and be remembered as such.

Re:Greedy old fools

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who writes & records "Happy Christmas" deserves to get shot. If I were on that jury, Mr. Chapman would be a free man.

the awful lot

[sxtxixtxcxh]

An awful lot of content creators are not represented by this and recognise an extension will do nothing for creativity and nothing for the public.

that's what they say NOW. wait until that awful lot are pushing their 70's and STILL making an awful lot of money from a single they wrote/recorded when they were pushing 20.

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[Daniel_Staal]

Don't worry. As has been noted, some of they are dead anyway.

(I wonder how many of the rest knew about the advert beforehand?)

Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[eldavojohn]

... from 50 years to 95 years.

I hate to attack Paul McCartney because I love his music, Beatles & post-Beatles. But I think 50 years is enough. Let's say you write a song at age 20-25 like the Beatles. Well, you'd have the rights for that until you're 70. Ok, so you yourself should have ample time perform and record that song or to license it and profit from it. Paul knows a lot about this last part after suing the other Beatles for many of the McLennon songs & subsequently selling them to Michael Jackson.

If I were a musician, I would be honored that so many people are waiting after those 50 years to use my music. The reason I feel this way and Paul doesn't is that he's going down in history as the one of the greatest singer/songwriters of all time no matter how long the copyright is held on that song. I'm not.

But why, in God's name would he want them extended to 95 years? Well, he made quite a bit of music after the Beatles & has been touring with that on and off. Some of it good & some of it quite bad. Either way, if he wants to cash out one last time before he kicks it, the rights to those songs will fetch much more if the buyers have them for 65 more years as opposed to 20 more years.

So that's what it's coming down to, not this 'fair play' bullshit. Paul's not hoping to be playing his music fairly after he dies ... he's just concerned about the money for these artists. And it's not money they're going to enjoy, it's money they're going to get and maybe try to pass on to their kids or something. Or buy another 1936 Rolls Royce Shadow with.

Who knows why they claim to need this money. Especially U2, that actually shocks me. Bono used to be all about people and to hell with money. I guess that isn't true anymore though he might try to show that he wants to keep making money to help people in a country less fortunate. At least he's got that going for him.

I saw an interview with Paul once where he basically said, "Yeah, I sold Michael Jackson the rights to these songs ... and it's too bad, you know, because I just want to play the music for my fans and have fun but I can't since I sold the rights." I guess sometimes I just have to treat them as artists with good music & just severely lacking in other departments. I think he knows exactly what he's doing and what he's done. I honestly think he's implementing publicity stunts just to work an angle of sympathy for a former Beatle. Unfortunately it's most likely going to work perfectly for him.

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[presidentbeef]

From the second article:

In reality, songwriters already have a 70 year copyright - that is the length of their lifetime plus 70 years; the 50-year rule applies to recording owners like, er, the BPI's major label donors.
The musicians already have the copyright for their entire lives, PLUS 70 years after they die.

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[hotdiggitydawg]

Let's say you write a song at age 20-25 like the Beatles. Well, you'd have the rights for that until you're 70.

Wrong. In the UK, he has the right for 70 years after his death. It's his record company that can only retain copyright for 50 years.

Actually I see that as a good thing - if they don't sell out to RIAA they can keep making money until well after they're dead, but if they do then hell, let's cut the copyright to 5 years.

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[Jezter!* $nothername]

A couple of corrections
McCartney was outbid by Michael Jackson for the Beatles catalogue - MJ had asked PM what the best investment was and PM said "The Beatles catalogue". When PM lost the auction he also fell out with MJ. Suprise, suprise!

The beneficiaries of the extended copyright will be the record companies (see the original article) not the artists, that's why the list of "signatories" included dead artists.

This is a profiteering expedition in the good ship "BPI" (Britain's RIAA) and they've been holed below the waterline by the Gower's Report so they've produced a highly biased "Poll" and are trying to stuff it in the hole. Meanwhile, "BPI-2" is being prepared and sets sail for Brussels to launch a charm-offence boarding party upon the EC Commission.

I'm praying for a Gower's mark 1 U-Boat being ready to greet them :)

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[Dun Malg]

Who knows why they claim to need this money. Especially U2, that actually shocks me. Bono used to be all about people and to hell with money. This is a philosophy which can only be genuinely pursued by two types of people: the obscenely wealthy, and the utterly destitute. Forgive me if I have significantly more respect for Buddhist monks who have eschewed all personal property save the clothes on their backs, than I do for a rich jackass who only doesn't care about money because he has so much he'll never be able to spend it all. The latter is not a transcendence of materialism. It's merely the difficulties of materialism being irrelevant. When Bono pledges all his money to a foundation to fight AIDS in Africa and lives in a small austere flat with nothing but the clothes on his back, maybe I'll change my mind. But so long as the fucker is walking around in $2000 sunglasses, I will only consider him a humanitarian of convenience.

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[Anonymous Coward]

But so long as the fucker is walking around in $2000 sunglasses, I will only consider him a humanitarian of convenience.

Very well put.

I only meant to juxtapose him relatively to his peers. People who walk around $2000 sunglasses but still don't donate anything to the poor or humanitarian programs. You know, like how the pope wears a million dollar hat as countries starve. Ever ask yourself why that dumbsh*t doesn't get his act together, liquidate the hat and pope mobile & feed a nation for a year?

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[cpt kangarooski]

I hate to attack Paul McCartney because he died back in the 60's. ;)

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me

[Dun Malg]

I only meant to juxtapose him relatively to his peers. People who walk around $2000 sunglasses but still don't donate anything to the poor or humanitarian programs. True, I do acknowledge his generosity, and he is to be applauded for that. I'm just not comfortable with claims of "not caring about money" from the filthy rich.

You know, like how the pope wears a million dollar hat as countries starve. Ever ask yourself why that dumbsh*t doesn't get his act together, liquidate the hat and pope mobile & feed a nation for a year? Hell, I'd be happy if he came out and admitted the whole obstinacy over birth control is a secret agenda to keep their numbers up. I have plenty of objections to the Catholic church, but then again, I have no illusions that it's anything but a self-serving organization...

Copyright laws hurt musicians and music:

[Anonymous Coward]

1) overpayment corrupts artists, destroys careers and creativity.
2) music is locked away in Record Label vaults, never to be heard.
3) music is pushed based on it's "marketability" in a corrupt market.
4) only affluent audiences can afford current prices.
5) small or non profitable musicians and genres are ignored.
6) real talent is is discarded in favour of patronism.

I wonder just how much longer we will allow this corruption to continue?

That's gotta be a world record

[ajenteks]

a host of musicians (over 4,500 of them[...])

That poor host... that's a lot of parasites... Quick! Call Guinness!

Re:That's gotta be a world record

[cmckosaurous]

I know I would need a good couple of brews if I found out I was a host to 4,500 parasites.

Seriously, U2?

[letsgolightning]

The same U2 who just moved their operations out of Ireland (different country, I know) so they wouldn't have to pay as high of taxes? I like this band and all, but I'm not very comfortable with the message of "I want greater protections in your legal system, but I'm not prepared to pay the taxes for it." Does not compute. On a side note, my captcha was 'greater.' I guess it's trying to get in on the action.

Moeny in 50 Years Time isn't Survival

[Morosoph]

Survival in the long term surely means reliable provision of future wealth, such as a pension. The creator needs to know that they're going to survive, rather than survive if they get lucky. Besides, to encourage serious, honest art, you need to encourage the artist to take risks that they might never be popular. Long term copyright doesn't do that.

Property is both an individual right and a social concept. There are forms of property that are not recognised because to do so would bring more harm than good. For example: patents beyond a certain period of time.

Re:Moeny in 50 Years Time isn't Survival

[Damastus the WizLiz]

This is not a question of the artists, This is about the British Phonographic Association keeping rights to songs. The article states that they already keep the copyrights till thier death +50 years. The Recording Association wants to extend that another 45 years so They, the Association, can make money off of it, NOT THE ARTISTS.

Re:Moeny in 50 Years Time isn't Survival

[cpt kangarooski]

Mm. Copyrights are exceptionally unreliable. If you wanted to help support people over time, they would be better off if you just gave them lottery tickets. The odds are better. Short term copyright is what's best for the public with regards to artistic works. Social welfare programs, sound investments, etc. are what's good for artists and their families over the long run.

There is only one reason for this...

[Pojut]

Money. And, if Lewis Black has taught us anything, it is this:

"People seem to think whoever has the most when they die wins...well, your dead fucknut. So...you didn't win."

Greedy

[tinymarc]

Wow ! Does that means that they are writing "good" songs because of the money ?? But maybe i misunderstood and in fact they are making songs for people because they (thinks) they are human being and therefore they know what it is to work hard and then they thought. Hey, i am gonna wrote something to make some hard work people's life easier. Or is it just a sentimental (sentimental ?) rip off. Or is it just like MacDo the combination is so savourous that you got addicted to it, but it is made on purpose to get more clients... Poor artist they don't produce much and then they get poor to the limit of bearable level ! By the way i don't remember any of them making me happy. But some did they are not in this list. Ho !

If logic prevaled...

[Anonymous Coward]

we would actually be reducing Copyright times.
Think about the artists and writers of the 1800's and even the first half of the 1900's. It tooks decades just for their product to be distributed. You first had to make it big locally (less than 200 miles), and then the product had to be good enough to justify the huge distribution costs of making it a national sensation. You really ran the risk of your copyright not lasting long enough to justify the effort.
Now we live in a world with existing international distribution systems. You can become an international hit and sell your works to the whole world in a week's time. Yet, we have all these artists complaining that the copyright is not long enough. It just sounds like greed. What is their justification?

Sure

[styryx]

Fine. Hell, extend it to however long you DON'T want me listening to your 'music'. There are ALWAYS other sources, stunts like this really inspire people to hunt them out. Then what will your copyright be worth?

I just want to know

[QuijiboIsAWord]

If U2 agreed to do this endorsement pro Bono...

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[A beautiful mind]

Their works probably are still sold. I wouldn't want to support a dead artist's family anyway - go work like the rest of us, silly freeloaders.

Extension of greed....

[draevil]

What is increasingly at risk here is the very important connection between a "right" to protection in law and the reason for the existance of that right.

The protection of copyright (and other IP forms for that matter) is intended to provide a reward to those who would contribute to the public good; to culture, society, the fine arts and our understanding of the human condition.

To this extent there is a good basis for creating a social contract whereby we protect in our courts of law the creative work of an individual from being passed off as the work of another, or modified in a way that misrepresents a work or distributed for free where that is not what the creator wants.

What they are arguing for now in the UK is the difference not between no protection and protection but between one degree of protection (its duration) and another. Importantly, though, they are using the arguments for and against protection in the debate about the degree of protection. That is a mis-use of the reasons for protection which provide no clear guidance in their favour here.

Given a 95 year term over a 50 year term are we motivated to be 90% more creative? Are great works of fiction or music not written on the grounds that they will *only* be protected for 50 years and not the all important 90 years? Fifty years represents a term in which the creator gets to benefit from their work but also then that society, in a meaningful time frame, gets to benefit culturally from the full propagation (not based on economic means) of a work throughout that society.

It's important also to note that a longer, stricter term of protection fails to acknowledge that all creation is based on the work of those that have gone before us. The true "originality" of a work is of course mollifed by the influences that it has taken. It is only right that creators accept their place in that great progression and let their work eventually also pass into the public domain to be recognised as the influence for more works that help society's culture to flourish.

A shorter copyright protection term could surely only encourage investment in new songs, new books, new acts rather than taking the easy route of holding on to back catalogues that are continuously re-released. Back catalogues are of course another source of irritation since the availability of most music that has been made and of most books ever written in the stores is extremely limited.

The creators of tomorrow would live in a poorer world if proprietary protection for what is, after all, our shared culture was extended arbitrarily to suit the present generation.

Re:Extension of greed....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are great works of fiction or music not written on the grounds that they will *only* be protected for 50 years and not the all important 90 years?"

Works of fiction (and songs) are protected until the death of the creator plus 70 years. The 50 year term from creation is for the rights of a recording, not the song.

Re:Extension of greed....

[draevil]

Yes, sorry, you're quite right though I meant that more as a figurative example of the strangeness of their request for a retrospective change to the duration of the copyright term on the grounds of incentive.

I would be quite happy also to see the duration for songs/fiction to be reduced downwards to life or less. We have sadly seen a "harmonisation" of copyright terms in Europe with the longest duration (I believe Germany's) trumping those countries with a shorter one. The argument seems to be that it's easier to extend than to reduce but I think it is worth taking the harder course in order to derive the greater benefit for society.

Sort of

[Shawn is an Asshole]

There is RIAA Radar. I use this when wanting to purchase a CD. If it's RIAA I download or buy used. If it's not RIAA I buy it new.

'Til death do us part

[dafz1]

Why not make it until death of the artist(or all group members)? Or, in case of sale of rights, a fixed period(like 10 years). If they were desperate enough to sell them, or stupid enough as in the case of Sir Paul, the buyer would have a fixed time in which to benefit. Why would you buy a catalog, unless to profit from it in the short term(except buying the Beatles catalog)?

I believe artists are entitled to keep the rights to their works for their lifetime. They made it, so they should be able to benefit from it. However, they shouldn't be able to put their great-grandchildren through school 45 years after they die. That's what wills and trust funds are for.

copyright is a government sponsered monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

If this copyright monopoly was not enforced by the government, then some would have less incentive to create.

But the amount of creation incentive in not related in a linear way to copyright term.

Remember that creation is not always about invention, it is also about extension.

If copyright length is too short (say less than 10 years), then there is less incentive for invention.
By the longer copyright length is (more than 30 years), then there is less incentive for extension.

Not what theyre on about

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say you write a song at age 20-25 like the Beatles.

The copyright on the song lasts for 70 years after Sir Paul's death. The copyright he is worried about is on the recording, i.e. after 50 years, other musicians can sample that recording as long as they pay the songwriter (i.e. him or whoever he's sold it to) the songwriting royalties, which is an automatic process. So now Elvis's cover of a classic song becomes as cheap to license as a no-name version of a classic song.

Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me - So have the facts

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Paul knows a lot about this last part after suing the other Beatles for many of the McLennon songs & subsequently selling them to Michael Jackson.

Paul McCartney sued the Beatles to dissolve their partnership because he objected to the other 3 naming Allen Klein as their manager over his objections. Not only did Paul win in court, he was proven right that Allen Klein was a bad choice. Paul McCartney NEVER sued the Beatles over songs he wrote. Making that up doesn't make it true.

Sigh. Again, you are wrong. Paul McCartney NEVER sold his songs to Michael Jackson. In the late 1960s, the Beatles (yes ALL FOUR OF THEM) agreed to sell their music publishing company specifically to raise money to start Apple Corporation. George and Ringo owned only minority stakes in Maclen Publishing (a.k.a. Northern Songs in the good ol' USA), but all four agreed. Sir Lew Grade bought the publishing. Sir Lew Grade sold those songs to Michael Jackson. He did give Paul McCartney a chance to buy them back, but Paul later said that Yoko thought the price was too high and refused to go in with Paul on the deal and Paul felt that he owed it to John to go in with Yoko to buy the songs. While Paul was trying to talk Yoko into a deal, Michael Jackson offered Sir Lew significantly more money for the songs. I don't remember the exact figures, but I think Yoko was quibbling at $100 million or so and Michael offered maybe $500 million. Sir Lew didn't wait and he took Michael's offer. Your supposed quote by Paul that he sold the songs to Michael, which you admit is by your memory, is completely untrue. Paul can't have said that he sold the songs to Michael Jackson because he didn't own them and you can't legally sell what you don't own, right? Paul has commented many times on the sale and he might have said that he "allowed" Michael Jackson to buy them, which isn't really true, but he certainly never sold them to Michael.

Ian Anderson

[Skjellifetti]

Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull wrote an op-ed in the Financial Times in favor of an extension.

Best responce was a letter that the FT published that basically said:

Hey Ian, You want to make more money? THEN WRITE SOME NEW SONGS!

Honestly, these songwriters, even the great ones, are thick as a brick sometimes.

Re:Ian Anderson

[VidEdit]

It is amazing that copyright holders think they have more right to earn money from their creations than patent holders. Why they be able to earn money onger than the inventor of a life-saving drug? If an architect designs a building should he be paid for that building for $95 years?

Re:Ian Anderson

[$pace6host]

Very sad, given that Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull incorporated quite a bit of "traditional" music in the albums they have done over the years ("Cat's Squirrel" on This Was; "Bourée" on Stand Up and again on Living In The Past, Bursting Out, and many others; "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" on Bursting Out, "King Henry's Madrigal" on Stormwatch; a number of songs on their Christmas Album; and on and on.) I doubt they paid any royalties to someone owning J.S. Bach's copyrights 200+ years after Bach's death, but if things keep up this way, his decendants might not have the same freedom to build upon the works of others as he and his band did. Life of author + 70 years? Why should I be paying royalties to his great-great-grandchildren? Rather than extending the copyrights in the UK, we should be shortening them in the US. I love this part of the letter:

I would go even further to express the personal view that such copyright is as real to me as Real Estate. If I can own the freehold, and thus the investment, in my home property, why can't the value of the investment in my recordings be a longer-term or even indefinite heritable, saleable right? I would have better protection as the bricks-and-mortar builder of my house than a "builder" of recorded music.

Who could possibly argue that the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper album is worth less than the slab-sided freehold concrete-box semi down the Viaduct Road? After all, both probably cost less than £100,000 to build, even in today's money. Which would you rather see stand forever as a living testimony to the best of the 60's? Which would you rather protect in terms of its long-term asset value?

I bet that over the lifetime of the existing UK copyright of the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper album, the record company made a whole hell of a lot more than "the freehold" ever will sell for. Maybe the builders of the building should have had royalties that they got to charge all people who lived in the building for their lives + 70 years -- or maybe that would make it too expensive to live anywhere? And land is something that you can't copy -- it's a limited resource. If one person occupies it, others can't. To give it to someone, you must take it from someone else. That is not so with music, limitless copies can be made without taking copies away from anyone. The only restriction is that limited time monopoly granted by the government. And to believe that ending a copyright in a reasonable amount of time would impact something "stand[ing] forever as a living testimony to the best of [its time]", does that mean the works of Mozart are any less revered because anyone is free to perform them without paying his estate? You said it -- thick as a brick.

Electoral fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

As a British subject I've an interest in not seeing this extension take place. Would you all mind awfully going and voting for 50 years on the BBC's poll (in the right hand column)? Thanks. I know nobody should belive polls like this, in part because they use a self-selecting sample, but they do. Which is handy, because with a bit of luck a load of international geeks can make it look like a large majority of the British public are against an extension. Off you go then.

18:38 UT:
50 years 54.39%
95 years 45.61%
19962 Votes Cast

Who benefits?

[PPH]

Here's the thing about these sorts of rights: In most cases, the original performer has sold them off to a record label. True, there are some residuals involved, but these are a small part of the continuing income stream from the material. Its the investors who own the portfolios of recordings that stand to benefit.

Looking at it from the artists point of view, he or she sells their rights to a producer in exchange for cash and/or a cut of future sales. The producer's offer is based upon the present value of the estimated revenue stream that the product will generate. It is a simple economics problem to calculate the difference between the present value of a revenue stream with a lifetime of 50 years and one with, say 95 years. It is not significantly greater, so the producer will not likely offer greater compensation to the artist.

On the other hand, these portfolios represent ongoing value to their current owners. Their present value is based upon their revenue stream in the present and near future, which (for established works) is known to a greater degree of certainty. Unfortunately, as the end of copyright draws near, these shortened terms do have significant impact on the assets values.

So, this change looks more like a vote to increase the wealth of a bunch of investors rather than compensation for creative talent.

Something is wrong when....

[metoc]

It takes you more than fifty years to profit from a song.

Exposes the big lie

[SiliconEntity]

I'm thrilled to see this, because it exposes the big lie which everyone uses to justify their illegal and immoral violation of music copyrights, that they're just stickin' it to the evil music companies and that the artists implicitly support these downloads. It's time once and for all for you people to realize that you are screwing over the artists when you pirate their music. Let that be on your conscience.

I don't expect you to stop, but at least stop lying to yourself and pretending that you aren't hurting the very people creating the music you love.

Re:Exposes the big lie

[FunWithKnives]

I, being a musician, can tell you with conviction that I do not, under any cirtumstances, support this kind of thing. Stifling creativity, adaptation, and derivative works brands these "artists" and bands as hypocritical money-grubbers. I think that, for these people, or the corporations that now own them and control their stances on issues like this, being about the music and the love of creating it was pushed to the wayside a long time ago. This is disheartening in many ways, and I don't want to have to believe it, because some of these people have influenced me greatly (Paul McCartney, for one.). But it has to be said, regardless. I have, and always will, give my music away to anyone that likes or identifies with it. I may put a price tag on the physical medium, with lyric-book, cover-art, track-list, et al included, but by no means should anyone be required to buy that in order to listen to my music. As for the whole "but everyone puts so much work into it." argument, let me tell you this. If you love music, and you love making music, it is not work. It is something that you have to do. It's like an addiction. Seriously. And, if you think producing is a difficult thing to do, you obviously aren't a musician or a producer. It takes a bit of time to learn, yes, and you have to be intelligent about it. But afterward, CoolEdit, a fast PC, and a few gold-diaphragm condenser microphones are all you need. Personally, I think that if you don't make music for the love of it, and the pleasure that you receive when other people listen, then you should not make one red cent off of it, regardless of your talent or name-recognition.

Re:Exposes the big lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never pirated music. I don't download it. All music I own copies of I've paid for.

That being said, this copyright extension idea sucks. Why should I respect the greed of the artists wanting the term extended for old works when they clearly don't respect the bargain they made with the public X years ago when they released their songs under copyright? It was done with the understanding that when the term was up, those songs would go into the public domain. Now that we're approaching the expiry of that term for some older material, everything has suddenly changed??

Why should they benefit by changing the deal after the fact? There was an implicit contract with the public here, and now that they have to pay up their side of the deal. I say: the bill is due, so pay up.

It would be interesting to know what they would think if the law were changed to extend copyright, but only for NEW works. I'll bet they would be just as upset about that, because they wouldn't personally benefit (unless they did the hard work of making new works and performing, just like every other artist does).

Re:Exposes the big lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, the issue at hand is when copyrights should expire. The only one talking about downloading is you. Also, once expired, copyrights cannot be violated and it is no longer illegal to download previously copyrighted material.

If you want to attack straw men for breaking the law it helps to have a law being broken.

Re:Exposes the big lie

[pembo13]

They could all piss off for all I care, if need be i'll buy a keyboard and make my own music.

Re:Exposes the big lie

[gary gunrack]

As for the whole "but everyone puts so much work into it." argument, let me tell you this. If you love food, and you love farming, it is not work. It is something that you have to do. Damn greedy farmers. Who the hell modded the parent "offtopic"?

4500 businesmen,not artists.Casualty is innovation

[openright]

These 4500 "artists" know that this 95 years will not create new incentive for them to create or enhance artistic works. (incentive when they are dead?). They know that this only serves to create money-for-nothing for their great-great-grandchildren: Or to create money-for-nothing for the owning corporation. They, themselves are probably also assuming to be rewarded soon for the corporate loyalty.

One casualty here is artistic creation. Innovation incentive for the heirs is limited due to inherited wealth.
But in reality, no heirs inherit these "rights". They sold out to some corporation or other individual unrelated to the original work.

The biggest casualty is artistic innovation from adaptation/derivation. Much of innovation builds on the works of others. Such an after-death copyright fights against such innovation.

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[Daniel_Staal]

Actually, I won't mind so much if the royalties went to the families. I'd rather copyright expired, but it would be a decent arrangement.

But the royalties usally go to the record company and whomever holds the rights, which at that point is rarely the families.

Copyright schemes

[DragonWriter]

One idea I've had is to have maybe 20 years of "free" copyright, after that, the work would have an (owner-stated) value, and be taxed annually at some percentage of that value, and any person or group of persons could, by paying the stated value, "buy" the work into the public domain. There'd be an outside limit on the length of copyright, too, but it wouldn't have to be too short (though shorter than the current US system, IMO), perhaps the greater of 75 years from creation or creator's life+20 years for personal works, and a flat 75 years for corporate works.

Re:Copyright schemes

[lenester]

That is an astonishingly good idea! Twenty years is plenty of time to gather the resources to bring something to market, so the free period removes the barrier to entry; after that period, it's effectively real estate. The only addition I would make is that the owner should be permitted to adjust the stated value (annually, when taxes are payed).

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is fair to continue copyright a *little* time after the death of an artist, so that the family can benefit, in order to cover those circumstances when a child's parent dies while the child is still young. But no more than 20 or 25 years after should take care of it.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer came down upon Paul's head

[Riddler Sensei]

Paul McCartney, you say? It just so happens that my roommate came back to the apartment last week with a copy of Abbey Road in his hand. A bit of shrinkwrap and one $cdparanoia -B later and I had Abbey Road on my computer. So tell me, am I going to Beatles hell?

So, in the end, is the money you take equal to the suits you litigate?

Why?

[erroneus]

Why would artists be about setting up copyright beyond their lifetime? To allow their families to inherit those rights?

All of this goes way beyond the original purpose of copyright. I think before any further changes are made, I think the purpose of copyright should be re-examined. Copyright was originally intended to better assure that artists are compensated for their work, but somehow, non-artists have managed to turn this into an unforseen industry; an industry that seems to harm the quality of artistic works made available to the public, the amount or portion of money earned by artists for those works and the public's interest in seeing those works evenually made available to the public domain which was definitely part of the original purpose and intent of copyright law.

By preventing works from falling into the public domain, it is harming the public's interest in a very real way and those needs should be addressed in a much more aggressive way because as of now and in the recent past, the public hasn't been using its voice at all.

Re:Why?

[Dun Malg]

Copyright was originally intended to better assure that artists are compensated for their work Actually, the original intent of copyright (at least in the US) was to enrich the public domain. Providing a mechanism in law for the creator to demand compensation for a limited time was merely the means to that end. The notion that society somehow owes these creators anything is a bit of propaganda cooked up by publishing concerns who make money buying copyrights.

Re:Why?

[erroneus]

That's true but only the other half of the whole thing. They get it for a limited time. Without the creation of the copyright concept, everything would be public domain and copying works would just be the norm. Admittedly, I think we're having a chicken and egg debate in this, but you really can't have one end of the copyright agreement without the other... at least you shouldn't.

But I agree with you on the propaganda part. So that's why the public and legislators need to rethink what copyright is all about.

Q.E.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

The quality of work has probably increased as a result of copyright?

Absolutely! Look no further than music for examples. Today we get the meisterworks of the all-time greats like Scoop Doggie-Droppings, Brainy Airbags and DJ Scratchy Records. Before copyright people had to suffer through the bilious outpourings of no-talent fly-by-night hacks like JS Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven and WA Mozart.

As for U2..

[Rob T Firefly]

For those unfamiliar with U2, they're the ones who made quite a tidy profit during the "Zoo TV" era, when they based their design ethic upon rapid-fire clips of other people's copyrighted material, courtesy of video cutups by the "Emergency Broadcast Network."

Other effects of not extending copyright,.

[russ1337]

If copyright is not extended it will have a huge negative effect on the record companies / British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and RIAA groups and content distributors, beyond that of royalties paid.

Content in the public domain waters down the argument for requiring ALL content is to be 'protected'. If half of the worlds music was public domain, lobbyists would have a hard time persuading lawmakers to put restrictions on ALL devices. This has been evident with the RIAA continuously argue why DRM is required for ALL music to prevent copyright infringement. These arguments usually fail to recognize the existence of non-copyrighted music (Creative Commons etc), and certainly make no provision for it in their argument or 'industry drafted bills' (e.g DMCA). This results in systems like the Zune wi-fi sharing system which applies DRM when transferring songs, whether the media requires protection or not, and with total disregard for other licences such as 'copyleft' which may expressly forbid it.

We've seen from the Napster and Gokster cases in the 'war on file sharing' argued that "ALL file sharing is infringement of copyright", and fails to recognize the legal uses of file sharing systems. Again, if half of the worlds music was public domain, media conglomerates' argument is significantly watered down. Services like Youtube and Google Video have already been targeted, and we've seen media companies desire to shutdown the service altogether although Youtube and Google video are exceptional in that they've been careful to prevent copyright infringement from the start, and the result has been for the media companies attempts to re-define infringement. (i.e teenagers lip-sinking songs). Again their aim is to prove the majority of content that is free is infringing copyright and the services providing it should be shut-down.

Big Media have a very huge stake in extending the duration of copyright, well beyond the immediate issue of royalties for artists. (The amount of these royalties that is passed to artists is another issue altogether). The music industry and BPI will likely "pull out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright, which we are starting to see it with the use of artists that have done very very well out of record company who may 'win the hearts and minds of the people'. Big Media will be lobbying politicians as fast as they can, and will no doubt us scare tactics where possible. If all this British music is released into public domain, it will make shutting down file sharing networks much harder.

The BPI (and RIAA) have responsibilities "in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties" which relies on a vast library of content being under their control. Music that us currently in their control placed in the public domain erodes their breadth of responsibility and will ultimately affect their cut of the royalties.

The extension of copyright by 50 years has far further implications than just the royalties paid to the artists. It weakens many of the arguments of the BPI and RIAA groups, and reducing their value and their income. This argument is not about the artists getting more money, it is about the BPI and RIAA retaining their value and ability to "fight the crime of music theft".

They cannot fight the "crime" if the music is free to copy and share.

Music of the past competing with music of today

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably you can create compilation disks of all the good stuff that
has expired copyrights ... say you take a shiny new Blu-ray disk, and
burn 50GB of mp3 files onto it ... maybe about 300 albums or so.

Then you sell it for a modest profit above your media costs ($20?).

Now the public is faced with a choice: Pay $15 for one CD with less
than 1 hour of music on it ... or pay $20 and get enough music for 24x7
entertainment for at least a couple of weeks.

Extending copyright is only partially about squeezing a few more quid/dollars
our of their old catalog ... its much more about protecting their current
and future catalog from an avalanche from the past.

Forgotten?

[DragonWriter]

I think it exceedingly unfortunate that our lawmakers have forgotten this.

I don't think they've forgotten it, I just think they don't care.

Advancing the "arts and sciences" doesn't add to their campaign warchest. Advancing the interests of Disney and the RIAA does.

If they think the length of copyright is too short

[10Ghz]

...Why did they release those songs then? Obviously they had no problems with the length of the copyright back then, and they released their music with the knowledge that at certain point in time their music wont be protected anymore. And they have had decades of time to profit from their music. And now that the time is up, they feel that the rules should be changed since they obviously have not profited enough.

Well, fuck them. Seriously. They make it sound like they are getting screwed here. No, WE are getting screwed here. We were promised that after certain period of time, that music would be liberated (so to speak). And now we are being told by some multi-millionares that "wait, we could use a bit more profits, so we want to change the rules, mmmmkay?". No, it's not OK. You made a deal with the public when you release those songs. And that deal says that after certain period of time, we, the public, would get access to those songs. Don't like that deal? Maybe you should have thought about that back when you released those songs.

Fuck you, you fucking dinosaurs.

ObMontyPython

[husker_man]

PollTaker: Bring out your dead!!

BritishRIAA wheels out dead artist: Here you go, let him sign.

PollTaker: He can't sign, he's dead!

BritishRIAA rep: Oh come on, he only died this year!

PollTaker: He still can't sign, there are too many dead signers on this petition as is

BritishRIAA rep: He's really not 100% dead

pushes button on wheelchair Corpse: I feel happy!!!

BritshRIAA rep gives money to PollTaker PollTaker: Well, Ok here's the pen.

BritishRIAA rep: Good, see you next Thursday?

PollTaker: See you then.

The American Revolution

[Nom du Keyboard]

One thing the American revolution changed was the European practice of the time (circa 1776 and back to Gutenberg at least) of Forever Copyrights. Publishing houses of the time owned copyrights in perpetuity, and if they didn't want to republish a book, it didn't get republished. The American Constitution changed that with its grant of rights for a limited period of time only.

Now the content industries seem trying to push us back to those bad old days once more. It was a bad idea then. It's still a bad idea now. And the worst idea of all is making them retroactive. Those works were already created. They don't need this extension to encourage that creative effort. Even if the laws were changed, they should only apply to new works.

As for Sir Paul, he should just shut the F* up! He's made his pile and can't claim poverty in my eyes. In fact, I rather like him less today than yesterday due to his participation in all this.

Re:The American Revolution

[mykdavies]

One thing the American revolution changed was the European practice of the time (circa 1776 and back to Gutenberg at least) of Forever Copyrights.

This isn't correct. The Statute of Anne was passed in the UK in 1710. It "created a 21 year term for all works already in print at the time of its enactment and a 14 year term for all works published subsequently."

Re:The American Revolution

[Nom du Keyboard]

This isn't correct. The Statute of Anne was passed in the UK in 1710. It "created a 21 year term for all works already in print at the time of its enactment and a 14 year term for all works published subsequently."

Point taken. However, the Constitution only enshrined in law the concepts that those in the New World were escaping from in Europe. Oppressive copyright was one of them, and the attempt was made to not let it happen here. And they succeeded for nearly 225 years too.

WTF?

[jgoemat]

I thought the main reason we have extended copyrights was to get them in line with other countries... I personally don't see how the public is served by a term any longer than the original 28 years. If you haven't made enough money off your copyrighted works by then, I doubt the extra you make will further encourage you to create more works.

Re:Maxwell's Silver Hammer came down upon Paul's h

[geekoid]

You have Abbey Road, you are already in Beatles hell!

Profit is NOT the only motive

[cdrguru]

I believe once material is released into the public domain it can be freely copied and made use of in ways completely unforseen by the creator.

For example, it would be no problem to use public-domain Beatles music as the sound track for a series of sodomy rape movies. While some would consider this to be a form of advertising, it probably would be so utterly negative that all Beatles music would be banned from public playing.

While you own the copyright, you can sue such folks into oblivion. However, about all you could try to do without the copyright would be to sue for slander or defamation. Such things generally don't go as well as the victim would like, however, so they might just have to shut up and take it.

How about releasing a dubbed version of a George W. Bush speech where he sounds more like Porky Pig, stuttering and spraying? Want to bet you get shut down because of copyright violation rather than something else?

YOu want an extension? Fine, but

[geekoid]

No government agency will help you go after people, and people can ONLY be brought to a civil court.

How to be a hero

[boristdog]

Attn: Bill Gates

You want to be a hero? Spend a few billion buying up rights to every song, book and movie you can lay your mitts on. Then offer it all to the world, royalty-free.

The "Gates Catalog" will be the biggest thing in education and entertainment in the world. Even slashdotters will praise your name.

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[BoberFett]

Isn't that what life insurance is for? When most people die or stop working for any other reason their paychecks stop coming. Why should artists expect to live a charmed life where one popular creation will take care of them for life?

Jeremy Bentham and the Auto Icon

[Venner]

It reminds me of Jeremy Bentham, whose body is preserved in the Auto-Icon at UC London. I think just about every law book on Property mentions him and the effect of a "Dead Man's Hand." (I.e., someone's Will or Trust Instrument influencing events far after they are dead.)

Sir Cliff Richard

[julesh]

According to the singer, many musicians recording in the 1950s rely on their copyright payments as a pension.

"It seems terribly wrong that 50 years on they lose everything from it." said Sir Cliff.

Is it just me who thinks that sentence makes more sense if you append "whose first record's copyright will expire in two years" to it?

Copyright extensions past the life of the author

[CKW]

.

You know, they say that extensions past the life of the author "protect the succeeding generations of his family" - but if his work was spectacular enough to be worthy enough of that much of society's resources - wouldn't he have earned enough money during the short life of the original copyright to provide for them?

Also - in today's markets it's entirely feasable for someone with a bug "portfolio" to sell the portfolio copyrights on the open market. If those portfolios have 50 years left on the copyright, they're worth a LOT more money.

So what's to stop an artist from selling his portfolio 20 years before he dies, and blowing all the money on himself?

And if the artist isn't "popular"? The portfolio is worth nearly nothing, and so existing for another 50 years is still worthless. And if your stuff is unpopular, do you think your heirs are going to be out there selling it or earning revenue from it? Hell no, they've got better things to do with their lives.

My conclusion - copyright extensions ONLY BENEFIT THE RICH ARTISTS.

Poor artists get jack shit.

.

Money money money, Always Sunny

[unity100]

In the rich-man's world !!!!

A-haaaaaa aaa a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

More of it you caaaan haaaveee iiiit !

You got my meaning, i presume ...

Dirty sellout bastards

[Tinman_au]

From the article:

"In reality, songwriters already have a 70 year copyright - that is the length of their lifetime plus 70 years; the 50-year rule applies to recording owners like, er, the BPI's major label donors."

This is only about the corporations getting an extension, not the artists. This being the case, why would any artist put their name to it?

I thought I'd reached maximum cynicism when it comes to greed in the music industry, but every now and then something like this comes along and makes me revise upward yet again...

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[cpt kangarooski]

You should mind. The royalties are generally nothing. Almost no works -- a fraction of a fraction of a percent -- are worth anything after a few years, much less over a really long span of time. Copyrights are a worse way of providing for widows and orphans than just giving them lottery tickets would be. The odds are worse, with copyright.

If you really are concerned with families, then support pensions, IRAs, social security, welfare, life insurance, and other systems that not only are infinitely more successful at actually helping families, but which are available to everyone, and not just a handful of artists (who, btw, if their works were of continuing value, probably had a fortune early on, assuming they didn't squander it).

I short, feeling good isn't enough. You have to look at results.

Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe

[Daniel_Staal]

I said I wouldn't mind so much, not that I wouldn't mind.

I stopped buying CDs a couple of years ago,.....

[LinuxLuver]

Once the RIAA and others SPELLED OUT to me that the music that has been the soundtrack of my life for the past 48 years is THEIRS I decided to let them have it. I don't buy music anymore unless it is open and free. The RIAA and others can keep their product. It's theirs, not mine. I don't want it.

Re:Maxwell's Silver Hammer came down upon Paul's h

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I don't think there's a problem with your having Abbey Road on your computer. But if you decide to borrow and install Band on the Run, do it quietly!

50years!

[Dan541]

If it takes you 50 years to turn a profit you need to packup your toys and go home

If you have three hours to kill...

[b.burl]

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8tidWET8tjIJ:h eadlesschicken.ca/eng204/media/+history+of+copyrig ht+p2p&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&client=firefox-aLink to a debate at Cornell with lots of background.

Re:Copyright extensions past the life of the autho

[gary gunrack]

There are lots of musicians (sidemen) whose names you don't know, who played on famous records. Lots of these guys are dirt poor, despite the royalties they get (or don't) from their records.