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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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.

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."

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.

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.

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: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. ;)

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.

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!