Slashdot Mirror
UK Rejects Extending Music Copyright
timrichardson writes "The British Government has rejected extending copyright for sound recordings. This is an important development in the face of trends to extend copyright duration, although it leaves British copyright protection for music recordings at a shorter duration than for written works. The decision came despite fierce lobbying from the large British music industry. The music industry will now lobby directly to the European Commission, but without the support of the national government, its position is significantly weakened. British copyright for music recordings therefore remains at 50 years after the date of release of a recording, in contrast to 95 years in the US and 70 years in Australia."
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Well I should hope so, I would much prefer music companies to make music by selling new and interesting acts, and by constantly signing and recognizing new talent.
It would be a sad day indeed if their only business model was to persistently extend to copyright on the older body of work.
Perhaps this victory for common sense will enforce it.
From TFA: "Some of the greatest works of British music will soon be taken away from the artists who performed them and the companies that invested in them."
I see it differently, some of the greatest works of British music will be freed from the corporate shackles and given to the British people to enjoy freely.
From wiki: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. For example, the copyright which subsists in relation to a Mickey Mouse cartoon prohibits unauthorized parties from distributing copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works which copy or mimic Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of artistic works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are sufficiently different to not be deemed imitative of the original."
If a song is good enough to still earn money after 50 years, the artist is probably richer than his wildest dreams. Read as: doesn't need the income.
"Britpop" was the big thing in the 60s. Look around your charts of the 60s and you'll find a lot of british bands that made music that's still awesome (Beatles, The Who, The Small Faces, ...). Much of what's been done back then wasn't a one day hype record like so much music we got today.
:)
... I don't wanna write artist 'cause it doesn't fit. What really is at stake is that people have actually a very viable alternative, even for Joe Average who doesn't know jack about the indie scene. There's well known music that's actually also pretty good, and it's going into public domain. If I was dependent on selling music, I'd be shaking in my bones.
Come 2015, you'll see a LOT of good music becoming free, free to share and free to enjoy. I can well see some kind of "retro" movement, not out of the usual reasons, but this time out of the reason that the music was good and then it's free. Kinda like an "anti-MI" movement. Music as a political statement again, though with a very different twist than it had in the early 70s.
But hey, I'd think it's cool when gramps and grandson bang their heads to the same tunes.
It's not only money that's at stake. People might find that the music back then was actually really "better" than the crap spewed by today's hype
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I remember hearing Rodger Waters talking about this. He likened it to the government taking away your house after 50 years, quietly ignoring the fact that he'd managed to sell said house 14 million times in the interim, and still possessed the house.
List of countries' copyright lengtho pyright_length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_c
AFAIK the EU has ruled that length should be 70 years, so this should make UK almost unique in the Europe. But there are several other countries that use 50 years. Personally I think the copyright should hold only certain amount of years, since publishing. The current law assumes that people die relatively young (under 200 years old), while some scientist bulieve that this will change in the near future and people could live thousands of years.
I think it should be extended so much so, that eventually the descendents of the Grimm brothers can sue Disney into oblivion for infringing on their works.
Would you also like to have your balls cut off with that, sir?
The copyright expiry should be calculated from the death of the artist, not the date of recording.
The number of artists who will have recording careers over 50 years will rapidly increase as the normal life expectancy increases.
In a few decades, people a 120+ years old will not be a rarity.
Even today there are some old-timers hanging around that released albums over 50 years ago. Like John Lee Hooker (not British, but anyway) who started his recording career in 1948, and even upstarts like the Rolling Stones and surviving Beatles members are rapidly approaching the age where you are happy just to have working bowel functions.
I don't mind the artist getting paid every time someone enjoys the song, but they're hardly going to benefit after they've bitten the big one, so I don't understand why they don't incorporate such a limit.
Why not make it 25 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes later? So if said artist is still alive after that length of time they still have rights to their work until they die, but if they die the record companies can't keep earning money in perpetuity for work someone else did, forcing them to continue innovating and finding new talent.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
For someone to lobby parliament to assign them ownership of a public good for free, I think they should at least show that they are either: extremely poor, or: a worthy cause. I think it's disgusting when super rich people ask for handouts.
Good, it's not extended.
Bad, it was too long anyway. I read an article (here) that said the optimum length is ~14 years!
IMO, it should be life of the author and that's it. Oh, and it should also be non-transferable---stop (most) record companies forcing the songwriters to give up the rights to their own songs in their contracts...
...so what about other copyrights? I say they do the same for software.. but since the life expectancy of great software is shorter then great music lets say after 5 years software becomes public domain... XP came out in 2001... so it should be public domain now PS.. I realize the irony in using the word great software then jumping to XP...
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
I won't subscribe to any argument about how much a successful artist "needs" the profits his work generate, but I can confirm his right to the same - although it should be the artist himself who decides, not the record company.
In my mind, a reasonable copyright length would be the artist's lifespan - and a fixed amount of time after if the same so chooses. Let the creator decide what to do with his own work, and stop the record labels from trying to make a living off the dead.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
You are assuming that copyright is only about money. It is not.
When Britney Spears wants to cover your 45 year old rock n' roll masterpiece, you want to have a say, don't you?
When a neo-nazi group changes the words of your anthem to support their politics, you want to have a say, don't you?
So I guess this means that fairly soon there'll be a huge right of people in the UK to remix old music to their hearts content and release it to the UK market only with no royalty implications, but when it is released internationally the original artist will still be able to claim royalties off of sales.
Sounds like quite a good deal actually
Parliament, who is in the parliamant, MPs, MPs represent the people in their constituency, as the Music Industry only has a small minority in each constituency it should not actually according to this system get any representation at all. Good system methinks.
Also FTA "Cliff Richard and Paul McCartney to carry on receiving royalties in later life." - This is cliff richard who will stop receiving any royalties in MAY 2057! and Paul McCartney who will receive his final royalty in AUGUST 2057! And this assumes they write no more songs or record no more songs. Do I smelll FUD? You cannot just say oh if you do this, such and such (insert fluffy animal artist here) will not get paid beyond the MILLIONS he already has.
First off, it's the copyright on *recordings*, not the songs themselves that stand at 50 years. The songs themselves are covered for life + 70 years. Secondly, when they recorded the songs, they did so with the full knowledge that they would have the exclusive right to distribute and profit from that recording for 50 years and no more. If they had thought better of it at the time, they may have decided that was not a good deal and not recorded the song, so they're in no position to start complaining they've been treated unfairly now. If the incentive was strong enough to get them to create, then the period was set well enough in their favour that it needs no extension. Thirdly, only a handful of the most successful artists (and their record companies) will ever benefit from this, so the remaining vast majority which are already out of print will disappear and be lost forever, at great expense to British cultural heritage. Now, if they were proposing a system whereby the period could be extended selectively, that might be worth considering. It should involve them reinvesting though, so it should cost them say 10% of the past 50 years' sales to renew for another 50 years. If the song's really that popular still, they'll make that back in 5 years, leaving another 45 years profit. Of course, if they're just being greedy, which they invariably will be, then it won't be worth it for them to do so. They should then feel free instead to create new art they can profit from instead.
Sorry, I'm originally from the United States and am therefore confused by this article. It looks a bit like the government in the UK has opted for a well-reasoned, balanced public policy rather than simply doing what a couple large industry cartels were asking them to. How exactly did this happen? Were any campaign donations (or, failing that, bribes) made to members of Parliament by the recording and film industries? I'm trying to figure out what went wrong but TFA doesn't give any details.
A lot of hyperbole from the IFPI, as usual. The important thing to remember is that this is Mechanical copyright. That is, the copyright on the actual recording of a song. In many cases, the people lobbying for these extensions (i.e., the "Artists") were also the composers so also own the copyright to the song/music itself. They will still own that as it only expires at death+70 years.
This means that people who wish to cover said works will still be a source of income.
The artists knew when they recorded these works that they had a finite amount of time to exploit them (and if they didn't they should have hired better solicitors), yet they are now turning around and trying to change the rules; That sounds a lot like the behaviour of young children, not grown men and women.
I am NaN
...don't until you've got an announcement of a reversal of policy on copyright. I got this reply after expressing my concerns about a speech David Cameron gave to the BPI.
Dear Mr Roberts,
I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail
following David's recent speech to the British Phonographic Industry
AGM.
There is little doubt that copyright theft is a major threat to the
future of our creative industries. Last year alone an estimated 20
billion music files were downloaded illegally. We must also not forget
the strong evidence showing that much of the profit from illegal
downloads and piracy goes to fund drugs and organised crime. Taking
proper measures to protect our musicians and artists from such theft
will allow more money to end up with musicians and artists, and will
allow the music industry to reinvest in developing and nurturing new
talent.
That is why David supports the extension of copyright term from the
current 50 years to 70 years. This would reduce the disparity between
the length of copyright term given to composers and that granted to
producers and performers, and will protect the thousands of musicians
who will lose the rights to their recordings over the next ten years.
Some people think these are all multi-millionaire rock stars, but the
reality is that many are low-earning session musicians who will be
losing a vital pension.
Finally, we believe that extending copyright term will not only allow
record companies to further reinvest in developing the next generation
of musical talent, it will also encourage the industry to digitise both
older and niche repertoire which will be good for all music fans.
Thank you, once again, for getting in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Honor Fishburn
Office of David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
My original message was:
David Cameron is not winning friends and influencing people by the
speech to the BPI. The recording industry is small, and overly vocal,
while there are a vast number of people who expect that copyright should
protect the immediate future of artists, but should not drag on to the
obscene level of 50 or 70 years after the death of the artist or
publication. Many people wonder what is so special about music when
designs and patents only extend for 20 years or so. Like patents,
copyright should be a deal; protection for a limited term in exchange
for placing ideas into the public pool.
Copyright and Patents are designed to encourage people to place their
ideas into the open so that other people may use them immediately at a
cost, and so that the ideas therein may become part of the Public body
of knowledge, available to all for the good of all.
Far from campaigning for an increase in the length of copyright, its
duration should be reduced to that similar to patents.
This argument has been dragging on for ages. He should really read a
speech by Thomas McCauley on Copyright from 1841, the opinions therein
are still just as valid today.
The byline on this form states
"Conservatives are tackling the issues that matter to the mainstream
majority."; in making this speech Mr Cameron is pandering to an
overprivileged minority. Their ideas and products deserve protection for
a limited term, not fossilisation for ever.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Well, we had a Prime Minister who was widely perceived as ensuring that your Mr. Bush kept his anus nice and clean. Now we have a new Prime Minister who wants to distance himself from his predecessor (owing to a few things like Iraq, corruption scandals, being in hock to corporates). Said new Prime Minister is also from a Scots Presbyterian background and probably is not too keen on the modern music industry. I guess these things trickle down a bit.
Pining for the fjords
Corrected
TBH it's not just when she wants to cover things that I want a say, it's when she tries to 'sing'. Unfortunately what I want to say would probably be caught by an expletive filter. It starts "Don't anyone let her
I sent this reply and am waiting to see what the response is:
Thankyou for responding to my email. Whilst I thank you for the reply, I do not think that the Party has thought its policy through on this issue.
Mr Cameron seems to have swallowed the industry spiel hook line and sinker.
The majority of "illegal" downloads were between normal people as a result of filesharing, and if the copyright law came down to a reasonable level, then these would be de facto illegal downloads would no longer be illegal. You should note that far from taking action against these mysterious "organised crime" figures, most download actions in court were taken against people like students. If it were not for Napster (illegal after a lot of court decisions) we would not even have royalties from downloads. The attitude on copyright is actually stifling innovation that would benefit the public at large.
The industry does have a right to initial protection, that is not an issue in dispute, but again, just because composers are given an unjust length of time in terms of copyright protection does not mean you should extend the injustice to all involved in the music industry.
I doubt you can name a large number of session musicians who are earning a reasonable pension from rights. Only 1-2% of any recordings have any worthwhile value after 20 years, so these session musicians are unlikely to be living a life of riley unless they have set up proper pensions like the rest of us have to. I suggest you challenge the music industry to see if they can put some figures as to how many session musicians are earning a reasonable income from their work more than 20 years ago, and I will suspect that it is extremely few. Only major performers and their heirs will really continue to significant income from these performances. Again, the Conservative party seems to have fallen into the trap of protecting a very small minority at the expense of the vast majority.
You seem to think that this is beneficial to musicians; it isn't. By freeing into the public domain a vast amount of work that new musicians can sample and replay without costs you would encourage a whole new generation able to innovate and derive without fear of prosecution.
I am aware that there is a difference between the Gowers report and the Select Committee report on the issue. Siding with the musicians seems ridiculous; for example I note from Hansard on 21st May that the discussion involved an MP concerned about his constituent "Fast Eddie Clarke" of Motorhead. Not to be rude, but Motorhead is a perfect example of one of the few well off bands who would benefit at the expense of the many. None of the rest of us working in day to day jobs will have royalty arrangements which will be inherited by his heirs. I do not begrudge Mr Clarke his musical success, or passing on what he earns in life to his heirs, but I do not see why this should effectively continue ad infinitum. Music copyright has effectively created a new peerage system, where you earn money purely because of who your father/ mother was.
In terms of votes, you're siding with the wrong side i.e the few instead of the many. I have generally welcomed the change in attitude of the Conservative Party, who I have long voted for but not without qualms about its cold social attitude. Under David Cameron, whether he is successful or not in his other endeavors, I will say that his best change has been to make the Conservatives more mainstream, warmer and less hostile. David Cameron's stated policy on this issue cannot be upheld.
Perhaps the most damning indictment on this issue can be stated thus: If I were a medical researcher and came up with a cure for Cancer, AIDs, or Malaria then I would not get "life+70 years" or even 50 years of royalties. I would get a patent for (give or take a few) about 20 years. I certainly would not get a royalty stream to "pass on to my heirs". I could responsibly invest the money I earned over those 20 years to provide security for my heirs, or I could spend it on a "rock and roll" lifestyle. It is regarded as a public good that protection should end after a limited time, resulting in lower cost medicine, and I do not see why artists should not have the same rules.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I have come to feel that the public would be best served by only granting monopolies for 14 years, as was the original US term. Current terms are much too long, and result in a great mass of material from the past that is blocked.
Cliff Richards, the man who made a hit song out of singing the lords prayer to the tune of Auld lang syne... Granted I think that the money went to charity, but he couldn't claim he didn't make money out of it indirectly, as well as it raising his profile again and allowing him to win awards. Do they not know what seemingly (or actually) eternal copyright would mean...
...So, I see you own a copy of the Bible
Jesus:
Cliff: Yes my Lord, I read it all the time. It's the best book in the world.
Jesus: Ah, but the thing is... Me and my dad wrote that... and you never paid us... I heard the other day that that's theft. Hell, if it was just me, I might let it slide, but it was in the commandments and all. Can't have one rule for you and another for those who stole a physical copy of books from shops... time to burn.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
However the opposite can occur, you can end up getting make more than you invested. I suggest you check out wiki's real estate link to get a better feel for real estate. Even in big cities it can turn a huge profit.
There was an early-day motion by some 50+ MPs saying "extend it for the sake of the artists". My own mp was one, so I complained and got an apology back -once he understood the details more he had removed is name from the motion.
I guess the bribes werent big enough, not when you are an MP in a university town with all those students to upset
The top two stories on slashdot are tagged "sanityatlast" and "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense". Is there a comet or something I've missed?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Christ on a bike! 50 years, and that is the shortest amount! Most of the drivel pumped out today has a shelf life of about 50 secs before it's recycled on the latest bi-monthly compilation CD, then left to rot in some record company basement alongside the careers of the so called musicians who "wrote" it!
Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
You want money? Then WORK FOR IT - like everybody else.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Even better: Instead of copyright, we use creator's right (or author's right, if you're french). Creator's right is a concept of continental Europe and a superset of copyright law. It puts more emphasis on the actual author and not on the distributors1. This means: You can't sign over all your rights. The distributor only gets a license.
Of course, due to homogenization of copyright law2, it's still a pretty crap law, but at least it prevents the worst exploitation of the artists and doesn't give record companies an interest in long terms - indeed, record companies would want short terms, because otherwise the families of the artist would have them pay through the nose, because creator's right is inheritible in many jurisdictions (a bad idea, of course).
Naturally, the companies just love to word their contracts so that they get everything and the artist nothing - after all, the specific difference in law is just an historic accident, but people, who make up the companies, are the same everywhere. But it would be a first step.
1 That's why it's called creator's right instead of copyright: it's about those doing the creation, not those doing the copying.
2 Which, of course, can only happen by having the longest term everywhere instead the shortest term everywhere.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
For how many years after installing a combi-boiler can a plumber expect to continue to get paid every time the householder turns on a hot tap or the radiators?
For how many years after repairing a car can a garage mechanic expect to continue to get paid every time the owner drives it?
For how many years after hanging wallpaper can a decorator expect to continue to get paid every time the householder looks at it?
For how many years after putting up a set of shelves can a handyman expect to continue to get paid every time someone puts something on or takes something off the shelves?
For how many years after having sex with a punter can a prostitute expect to continue to get paid every time the punter cracks a stiffie?
In the Real World, you do a job, you get paid for it, and that's it until the next job you do.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I am surprised nobody mentioned Melancholy Elephants http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___ 1.htm as a response to this.. I really think this should be read as a bed-time story for every would-be politician, just to keep on the safe side.
if you had read the arstechnica take on this story you'd see that yahoo missed a great quote out from the head of the committee that decided not to increase the total length of copyright.
Former Financial Times head Andrew Gowers, who led the committee that produced the report, said earlier this year that his committee's work actually led them to conclude that the length of music copyrights should be reduced, not increased. Political realities made arguments for reducing copyright terms unworkable, he said. "I could have made a case for reducing it based on the economic arguments," said Gowers. "As it is, we left it in place rather than increasing it to 95 years as some of the music industry wanted and again, I think we steered a happy middle course rather than siding with one or other of the opposite poles of this debate." This is great that someone in power and who has the influence to change things is seeing the real facts about the case
The laws that allow you to incorporate yourself and grant yourself stock, with which you can assure a steady stream of income in the form of dividends paid from the business' profits. If it tanks, too bad, but the same applies for a musician who'se music fades from memory.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Some of the earliesst recordings from Elvis are from 1955, which means that due to the Berne Convention and the 50 year copyright in Denmark, and the UK, I can legally copy thoose early recording... Nice.
If I understand the Berne Convention corretly, Elvis won't be treated any differently in the UK than any UK artists, which only have a 50 year copyright. However, the Beatles don't get 95 years of "protection" in the US, because the convention prevents a country from extending copyright beyond that of the country of origin.
Now we just need a EU website to hold all that Elvis goodness.
How about this for a basis of Copyright:
An individual entity can retain the copyright of a work until +50% of the target audience has witnessed, seen, bought, or interacted with the product. If it's been given to the public, it's public domain.
If you're going to play that same damn song every hour, on the hour, for 24 hours a day. It'll be public domain in no time. That'll fix a lot of radio right there.
The trick them becomes in figuring out what this +50% is. How many copies, market penetration, etc. It's not a perfect idea, but I like the basis.
I'm not arguing for the term length, I really think it should be no more than 10 years in any case. Just pointing out what we're willing to swallow with in one industry and its parallels in another.
You get the idea.
Could I set up a business in the UK selling early Elvis Presley music without paying Elvis Presley Enterprises ?
The term of copyright is a limit on the protection of the intellectual property "music". The question to be asking musicians is: "Do you support the extension of medical patents, such as a potential cure for aids, to 50 years?". That is, how is the intellectual property "music", more deserving of protection than then intellectual property "cure for aids"?
Really. I'd love to see Sir Paul answer that one.
Cheers
JE
The first thing they will do is set the target audience to be the entire world. Then, they expose 49.9% of the world to their music. Then, until over 3 Billion people have bought copies of the album/movie, claim that they haven't reached 50% market penetration yet.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Quote
> British copyright for music recordings therefore remains at
> 50 years after the date of release of a recording, in contrast
> to 95 years in the US and 70 years in Australia.
Actually 95-years is a soft number; it can be ignored. The U.S. has an indefinite copyright duration on recordings so long as you have the money to extend it.
--Richard
Everyone is arguing that this is an altruistic move by the Brits. I don't think that that is the case.
...
Releasing copyright on Brit Pop at about the time that it started to take over the world will obviously stimulate interest in it a second time around. And it's good. Very good. It peaks with groups like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Animals, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Clapton
So the world's music scene will be faced with a low-cost invasion of top class British performers. This is bound to create interest in current British performers - do you remember in the 1960s the architypical rock star was British? This will happen again.
So, a huge shot in the arm for current British performers. And a world revitalised interest in things British. More tourism, fashion, influence in a host of associated areas. Back to 'Swinging London'? And where the style goes, the money will go. New York is always having to beat off London in competition for the world's top financial centre. What will we have to offer?
I wish we'd thought of it first!
If you pay the salary of an artist or an author for a work, up front, then you can "give away" the music or book they have written for you, and they only get paid once, just like all the other labors you describe.
Except for a few well known artists, who get an advance AND royalties, there are thousands who toil away without pay - until/unless they can sell their work "later". There is a difference between paying for something "now", a sure deal, and taking the risk of getting your money "later". Just because a work is covered by copyright for "a long time" there is no guarantee that it will be worth anything, but without copyright, it FOR SURE will be worth nothing (to the creator).
Almost every copyrighted item that people are bitching about not being "free", is simply "entertainment".
Nobody "needs" to buy mere entertainment, they just "want" it! The very fact that copyrighted material, not counting the media, is an intangible that folks are still willing to pay for argues the very need for a copyright law.
I am not sure what the exact balance WRT copyright law should be, but I am just pointing out there is some need for copyright in the Real World.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I dunno... How can you claim the record companies are not creative? Their accounting practices are legendary for breaking new ground in advanced mathematics, economics and fantasy!
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
of copyright. Only the stars and their heirs might benefits from 50-90 years span of copyright. The question is, does fattening the lottery jackpot really stimulates creativity of the musicians? And how does that compare to the chilling effects of more lawsuits?
The right question is: Are people currently discouraged from publishing music or building businisses around music distribution because copyrights are too short? If so, extend copyrights. If not, don't extend them, or even shorten them (good luck with that).
But don't extend copyrights every time Mickey Mouse is about to go in the public domain like we've done in the USA!! That is just using the government to stifle creativity.
Mod parent up.
So what? If they want to keep making money off their old songs they can keep performing them. If they want to capitalize further on their star status, they can write new songs, see if they've really got the jets to crank out more hits. Why should they have exclusive creative control of their old songs for such an absurdly long period? Why should anybody have to pay for the privilege to perform or use samples from a song that was written twenty years before they were born? And why, if an artist makes a deal such that their song is in part or in whole owned by their publisher, should that artist be stuck dealing with that one company for the rest of their lives?
If copyright were shorter, then those few really huge hits - the flukes, the abnormal cases where a song becomes tremendously popular, even if only briefly - would be less important, less valuable. Because hits are so valuable - not only in the short term, but for the whole life of the copyright - there's tremendous emphasis placed on finding them and bringing them to people's attention. This is why radio stations have such small collections of music in rotation - if there were too many new songs in rotation then no one song would get enough repeat play to get people's attention. If the big hits were less valuable, there could be more variety in the playlists - a larger number of less valuable songs. Instead of one musician being the "lottery winner" and being set for life, you might find ten, instead, making a steady living for several years from the success of their songs. More people could get "in" - they would have to, because without copyright providing this artificially high value for the extremely small number of hugely popular songs and granting record companies a century-long monopoly on the works they control, record companies would need to be more continuously refreshing their catalog, even if not all the strong pieces in their pieces are on the order of what today would be considered a hit. There would be more room for exploration, more room for risks. Lowering the stakes would open the doors to more work, and more interesting work. That's how I see it.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
The turnaround begins. The TRIPS agreement (if you're involved in this debate, you know what that is) calls for a minimum copyright term of 50 years. So what we need are "Copyright Harmonization Acts" which set copyright limits to no more than the limits in the TRIPS agreement. First in Europe, to harmonize terms across the European Union, then in the US.
How many years after installing a boyler
Before the pluber stops you to pay?
Yes, 'n' how many years is a car-mecanic payed
Before he is ownin' the car?
Yes, 'n' how many years must the wallpaper hang,
before it is finaly yours?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many years after putting up shelves
Can a handyman expetct to get payed
Yes, 'n' how many years after having some sex,
can you expect again to get layed.
Yes, 'n' how many times can I plagiate this song,
before I get sued back to hell?
In the real world, my friend, till the next time you pay,
In the real world, till the next time you pay.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley#Discogr aphy
Does this mean that I will find his mp3s freely and legally available on British servers soon?
Heard about the Jazz guitarist who won a million dollar lottery-when asked what he would do he replied (clicking his fingers)"keep playing jazz until the money runs out"
One of the provisions of the Bono Act of 1998 was that all audio recordings made before 1972 were placed back under copyright until the year 2067. This extended the copyrights on Big Band era music to more than 120 years after they were recorded. Material that had already been in the public domain for many years -- the entire Golden Age of Radio for example, even wax cylinder recordings made by Edison in the 1890s -- will be under copyright until 2067. Way more than 95 years.
IANAL, but doesn't changing the terms of existing copyrights violate the whole basis of contracts? The public agrees to observe a copyright holder's exclusive rights, as well as paying for their enforcement, for a given period of time. The payoff is that at the end of that time the public gets free use of the material. Changing the law for new material is one thing, but extending the terms on existing works seems tantamount to declaring that all 30-year mortgages are 80-year mortgages. But hell, I'm just a citizen, what do I know?
that the CSS world doesn't give anything to the public domain when copyright expires.
My thought is that if there is no "human readable" effect of the works then the human-readable version must be included to get copyright. For programs, this would be source code. For GPU's it would be IDL diagrams. Paintings, movies, etc are inherently human readable. A computer program can't be run without source so you get nothing apart from seeing it run as a binary.
"like most musicians you will have to work the first dozen or so years of your life for virtually nothing, with no guarantee whatsoever of ever making a penny from any of it."
Anybody who goes to a University for 4 years and spends $80K in education bills will tell you musicians are not really unique in that regard. And no, there is no guarantee that you will do any better financially because of your degree.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Possibly the most prolific composer ever.
He was quite concerned about lucre as shown in many of his letters.
Copy rights did not exist in his days, yet that arguably encouraged
him to be more productive. In other words, he had to keep writing
new materials every weeks and months to give to his choir and
orchestra. He could not rely on repeating the same repertoire.
Of course, he's considered a genius because he still produced very
high quality work in spite of his quantity. His motivation depended
not on a jackpot, but on getting steady income from steady work.
You might argue that the poor staving artists produce the best works.
But I see scant evidences of that. If you consider who are considered
to be masters in western visual and music, I think you'll find just
as many who were poor and staving as ones who were established and
working steadily.
BTW, I DO support channel more money to support young artist to try out
their ideas. I suspect that a lifetime stipend would be considered too socialist though!