Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Copyright Under Fire Again

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-have-that-fifty-year-old-music-go-free dept.

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.'"

18 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. It's logical they would feel this way. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:It's logical they would feel this way. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:It's logical they would feel this way. by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?
      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:It's logical they would feel this way. by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:It's logical they would feel this way. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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!

    5. Re:It's logical they would feel this way. by BeerCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      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"
      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
  2. Who cares what the artists want? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by HoboCop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by cliffski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    3. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
    4. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  3. An ad to tell the public what they want by dysk · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.
  4. Lessig Blog: Signed by dead artists by wsherman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. Is there an easily accessible list of who signed? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  6. Sir Paul Has Failed Me by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... 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.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  7. Other effects of not extending copyright,. by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.