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."

Comments

*heh*

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

First sentence of TFA should read:

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government rejected a plea to extend copyright laws for sound recordings to beyond 50 years on Tuesday, prompting the music industry to accuse it of not supporting dead musicians and artists.

Re:*heh*

[kinabrew]

I sure wish that I could get to keep collecting money for 50 years for work that I'm doing today.

Re:*heh*

[cliffski]

It can be arranged. however, in return, 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.
If you want to get started here are some links:

http://www.guitartricks.com/

http://www.learnpianoonline.com/welcome.html

http://www.studydrums.com/

The entertainment industry is open to anyone, male or female, black or white, and has no real barriers to entry. there are very cheap starter guitars and keyboards out there...

Of course, if like 99.9% of people, you would rather have a safe and steady job with regular salary paid, and not put up with rejection, sarcasm, derision, and general apathy for those years, with no pension, no career structure, and absolutely no certainty of ever making more than minimum wage, then that's fine, but in that case, it's probably only fair not to whine about the 1% (or less) of musicians who were prepared to take all those risks, and saw it pay off for them. It's like whineing about lottery winners, when you weren't prepared to risk your dollar on buying one.

Re:*heh*

[IndieKid]

I sure wish that I could get to keep collecting money for 50 years for work that I'm doing today. Time to get the guitar out then ;-)

As a UK citizen, I'm glad the British government is able to stand up to the record companies and reject their calls for an extension. If anything, we should be looking at reducing the length of copyright for written works (books and stuff) to match that for music.

Re:*heh*

[timmarhy]

lets be real now. most people who get their break in entertainment get it because of people they know. you can have all the talent in the world and practice all you want but the significant barrier to entry is that there's 10000000 acts out there, most of them suck balls and knowing someone persoanlly who will give you a shot is what it takes. "have a safe and steady job with regular salary paid, and not put up with rejection, sarcasm, derision, and general apathy for those years, with no pension, no career structure, and absolutely no certainty of ever making more than minimum wage"

WTF? how does the other 99.9% you refer to avoid all these pit falls by having a "normal" (what ever the fuck that is) job? you still get rejections and sarcasm from people in any job, no one even has the certainty of making minimum wage for that matter. If you find a job where i can avoid/have all the above, please tell me, because i'd love to take it.

Re:*heh*

[pubjames]

Of course, if like 99.9% of people, you would rather have a safe and steady job with regular salary paid, and not put up with rejection, sarcasm, derision, and general apathy for those years, with no pension, no career structure, and absolutely no certainty of ever making more than minimum wage, then that's fine,

Hey, I have my own business and all those things apply to me too. But there are no special laws for me that say I should continue to profit from work I did decades ago.

Re:*heh*

[Corporate Troll]

That assumes that you can rent it in 50 years without doing any work for it. A 50 year old house without maintenance in its lifetime is only worth the terrain it's build on. Which brings us to the next point: unless you have a terrain, you have to buy one, which means you need to have money in order to do this. Don't say "mortage", because you'll be working to pay the mortgage off. It also assumes that you can build a house on your own from architecture to building the roof. I doubt you can do that, so it means you are going to pay to build that house.

Where I live, you need to count about 750000€ to build a smallish house (~150 square metre) on a smallish terrain (5 are). Even assume you have that kind of money, and you manage to rent it at 2000€/month (which seems to be the asking rent for such a house), you will need more than 30 years to get break-even! At that point your house will need significant repairs...

I don't think your house example works out....

Re:*heh*

[MartinG]

If I don't buy a lottery ticket, I haven't lost anything. This is fine; I want no part in the system because I think it stinks.

With copyright, I am involved in the system whether I like it or not. My right to use and change data is restricted by government intervention in order to protect the profits of a small minority who rely on an otherwise broken business model.

It's all a pointless discussion anyway. Extrapolating from current trends, in 15 years time you'll be able to buy a disc for next to nothing containing all the music anyone would want for next to nothing. Kids will be trading them in the playground for a pack of crisps. It's just a shame it will probably take until then for the industry to adapt itself, because it will cause itself so much pain in the mean time. If only it would aggressively adapt now, things would be better for everyone.

Re:*heh*

[donaldm]

I think you forgot to add, that if you own a business the risks are very high and you may need to put a considerable amount of your time into your business. What many people fail to realize is that a business also employs people while an entertainer rarely does although they do keep the entertainment industry profitable which in a twist can keep their shareholders happy. In the entertainment industry the entertainer is an employee and rarely has to take monetary risks unlike other business although many don't see it that way.

I know that it is very hard to be an entertainer and you still have to make sacrifices to get to the top but rarely the same as small business make. If an entertainer fails and is not stupid they can still do other work for a living but if a business venture goes stale then the owner and/or shareholders can go bankrupt requiring a considerable amount of time to recover if ever.

Personally I think 50 years is far to long since it rare that an entertainer actually writes (this can be copyright) and produces his/her own routines, in most cases they do what they are told which is not much different from that of an employee of any business, except they can get huge amounts of money and can collect up to 50 years of royalties if they were smart enough to negotiate for this.

Re:*heh*

[ContractualObligatio]

Sorry?

There are indeed laws for patents, copyrights and trademarks that make it possible for business people to continue to profit from original work their employees performed decades ago. And leasing agreements. And stock ownership plans.

No need to feel left out, you have the same laws at your disposal.

Re:*heh*

[JonathanR]

College degrees might not expire, but they do depreciate in value. Try getting a college degree, sit on it for 10 years without gaining experience, and see how useful it is for you.

After a period of time, employers are usually looking for recent experience and demonstrated capability. Sure, they do expect to see a degree for most professional positions, but the degree alone (if at all) is not a passport for big-buck jobs.

Re:*heh*

[CarpetShark]

I dunno, if the remaining Beatles survive another 6 years then their early work will be out of copyright in their lifetime.

Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before that.

So? The point of copyright is NOT to pay artists. That's a side-effect. The point is to encourage creativity in society. In previous and current incarnations of copyright law, this is done by paying artists royalties for a given period of time. If I understand correctly, this period of time has constantly increased.

I would argue that the period of time should be DECREASING. As more and more artists exposed to more and more global ideas are able to evolve new works more quickly, the legitimacy of holding on to now-outdated work quickly falls away.

Long copyright terms made more sense when the latest popular music was the same stuff some classical artist created 15 years ago -- when it just spread far enough for everyone to learn about and for others to begin dreaming up variations on. Today, music is distributed worldwide in seconds or less, and is absorbed into a huge global consciousness of styles, tastes, remixes, etc.

Music should not be copyrighted for more than a few years, imho.

Re:*heh*

[timrichardson]

I thought copyright expired 50 years after the death of the copyright owner, not 50 years after publication of the work. How is Cliff Richard going to lose royalties when he is still alive?

Re:*heh*

[poot_rootbeer]

The entertainment industry is open to anyone, male or female, black or white, and has no real barriers to entry.

P.S. no fatties and no ugly chicks.

Re:*heh*

[Orange Crush]

What many people fail to realize is that a business also employs people while an entertainer rarely does

A concert employs dozens, if not hundreds, from ticket takers to sound and lighting engineers. How many people work in a recording studio, or the factory that presses discs? Heck, even a one-man-band at a coffee shop or bar might have some kid working the door, or at the very least keeps the establishment's own employees busy, sometimes requiring extra staff depending on how big of a crowd is drawn.

An entertainer has the crowd's attention focused on them by the very nature of what they do. Just because you don't notice the army of black-clad figures behind the scenes putting it all together and making it work, doesn't mean they're absent or unnecessary.

Re:*heh*

[twistedsymphony]

I think the difference is that creative works like a book, a movie, a song, are intangible data, they're an idea not a physical object. A house or rental property is a physical object it can't be used by an infinite amount of people at once, it can't be duplicated en-masse, and the bounds and rules governing it's ownership and usage are very cut and dry by comparison.

I think the key here is not so much about copyright limits and royalties but how you define ownership. If you want to define ownership of an idea in the same way that you do an object then there should be no limits, ownership could be sold to whoever wants it, and if desired can be donated to public use much like an artifact or a historical building. These "objects" would simply have the happy side effect of being leased out to an infinite amount of people at the same time. like an apartment complex with an infinite amount of rooms.

If you want to view an idea as belonging only to the person who created the idea, as if the idea itself is PART OF THAT PERSON, then maybe copyrights should be non-transferable... maybe they should become public domain with the death of their originator and if a record label wants exclusive use they should be required to exclusively lease that idea while the originator is alive. So when some musician signs with a label, or some writer signs with a publisher they always retain the rights to their works but they might sign a life time exclusive lease with the record label. the label could then sub-let it to other labels or terminate their contract etc. I doubt we'd ever see a system like this get put to use.

Maybe a happy medium that would actually bode with todays model is to set a limit of 50 years or until death, whichever is longer.

Re:*heh*

[badfish99]

So "those musicians who took all those risks, and saw it pay off" worked long and hard in the industry, knowing all along that their copyright payments would end after 50 years. Why should we give them any more money now? They made their choice in full knowledge of what would happen, and should live with it.

Re:*heh*

[utopianfiat]

He's talking about talentless, unoriginal, sellout whores who are signed with a major label that often litigate against their customers. They make a lot of money and a good way to get signed with a major label is to know a guy who knows a guy whose dick you have to suck for a couple cool million.

Re:*heh*

[Z0mb1eman]

And that's fine. Copyright terms have very little to do with those employed at concerts or recording and distributing music.

Good.

[apodyopsis]

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."

Re:Good.

[TechForensics]

Agree wholeheartedly. Our culture has been co-opted by big companies, and it belongs to them more than to us. We ought not tolerate private ownership of our culture.

50 years?

[jadin]

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.

I understand the point of the MI

[Opportunist]

"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.

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 ... 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.

Re:I understand the point of the MI

[sa1lnr]

"People might find that the music back then was actually really "better" than the crap spewed by today's hype"

I can assure that there was crap around then too.

The Archies and Paper Lace are just two that immediately spring to mind, but there were a lot more. ;)

Excellent, govnt. got it right for once

[Multiplet_Higgs]

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.

Changing the rules is one thing

[Asic Eng]

If you change the rules and say: from now on new works will have an extended period of copyright - ok those are new rules. If you extend copyright on already existing works, that's a different matter. It means you take something which currently belongs to the public, and give it to some private entity.

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.

50 years is still too long

[minuszero]

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...

Re:Not all dead

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The copyright expiry should be calculated from the death of the artist, not the date of recording.

Oh yes, I couldn't agree with you more, ask any dead artist - the motivation to produce new works comes from the copyright powers they enjoy!

Re:Agreed.

[jadin]

Why not make it 25 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes later?

I don't think it's that simple. Suppose a young musician is moderately popular, and is out on tour. Suppose (s)he dies in an accident, and their death sparks a tidal wave of interest in the musician. Now what if they had a very young child and widow? Are you suggesting the child and widow should be on welfare or be a working single-parent, when their spouse had more than enough money to support them if only they weren't screwed over by a copyright expiring at the artist's death? I'm pretty sure the dead musician would've wanted his family taken care of.

I really don't understand why the copyright couldn't be 25 or 50 years and leave it at that. It doesn't seem unreasonable.

Re:Why can't the authour decide?

[gnalre]

I agree. One of the issues with extending a copyright term is by increasing the value of the copyright you increase the incentive of record companies to get artists to sign over there copyright rights at the the start of there careers.

Such a move is more likely to help large record companies than artists in the long run. If there was some guarantee that artists were likely to benefit, then I would be more amenable, However record companies have very good lawyers so I doubt there is a way to do this.

Re:Agreed.

[spottedkangaroo]

You're thinking of insurance.

I make a good amount of money at my job. If I die is my employer required to pay my wife and kid for 50 years? Or do they pay life insurance premiums?

Re:Agreed.

[hab136]

Why not make it 25 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes later?

I don't think it's that simple. Suppose a young musician is moderately popular, and is out on tour. Suppose (s)he dies in an accident, and their death sparks a tidal wave of interest in the musician. Now what if they had a very young child and widow? Are you suggesting the child and widow should be on welfare or be a working single-parent, when their spouse had more than enough money to support them if only they weren't screwed over by a copyright expiring at the artist's death? I'm pretty sure the dead musician would've wanted his family taken care of.

In your example, the 25 years would be the "later" event, and so the copyright would continue through death. (Unless the artist has made the work 25 years ago, then died, *then* it became popular)

I really don't understand why the copyright couldn't be 25 or 50 years and leave it at that. It doesn't seem unreasonable.

It was, originally. However, corporations making money off old creations lobbied to have it extended. For example, Disney is still pimping out a 1920s creation - Mickey Mouse.

Misconceptions

[coalrestall]

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.

Re:Not all dead

[remmelt]

These people have been paid for FIFTY YEARS for a one-time job!

If they had a hit song, they're likely rich. Richer than riding a desk for 50 years, probably.

In the mean time, they could have invested the money and have gone from Rich to Very Rich Indeed. Or, you know, they could have made another recording. A second album. They could have gone on tour, making a lot of money with tickets. They could have decided to sell goodies, like tshirts and stuff (RHCP used to not sell tshirts, when they did they bought a nice house in Hollywood for it. All of them. (source: documentary on TV)).

Your examples, however great artists they are or were, are not people we need to feel very sorry for in a monetary sense. Monetarily sorry. They have ample cash to live out there lives like a king without having to lift another finger.

Besides, they won't be recording any new songs when they die, so who benefits?

Yes, who will benefit? Their offspring? Perhaps. Stella McCartney is doing well for herself though. So is Lennon's kid. I don't think any of the Stones' offspring need to worry about their direct future. Madonna? Britney? Set for a couple of lifetimes.
The record labels will benefit, that's who. Too bad that the record labels aren't creative in any way. They don't deserve the monopoly granted by the government. They will never be able to record the next Satisfaction or Love Me Do. They have bands for that. Sure, a label has its role and should be compensated, but not through a government granted monopoly that wasn't even intended to be used in this sense. And to see these old bats act as their spokesperson is sickening.

Re:Not only about money.

[lachlan76]

So extend the moral rights beyond the period of copyright. It solves the problem that you mention.

14 years

[mbone]

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.

50 years....50 secs more like!

[Fuzzypig]

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!

Re:50 years....50 secs more like!

[jb.hl.com]

Copyright should not make value judgements about a work's quality or viability, as you seem to be doing. Nor should it only exist for as long as something is popular.

Not saying 50 years isn't too long (it is, 25 years minimum is at least reasonable) but come on.

No, you're not involved unless you choose to be

[TheAxeMaster]

With copyright, I am involved in the system whether I like it or not. My right to use and change data is restricted by government intervention in order to protect the profits of a small minority who rely on an otherwise broken business model. You choose to listen to music, just like you choose (or don't) to read books. You could easily go through your entire life not ever paying a dime for any music and not listening to it. But you choose it, just like most of the rest of us. What they want to do is to restrict your rights in the same way that you are restricted with a book. You can't make a perfect copy very easily or print your own and distribute them. But nobody seems to be up in arms about that and the barrier to entry is just as high for a new author. And sticking your book on a website or myspace isn't as effective as it is in the music industry.
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.

That's all work for hire...

[NotQuiteReal]

All the things you describe are works for hire, paid for by the beneficiary of the work.

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.