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*

[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*

[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.

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.