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."
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
...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 agree.. they should limit how long the RECORD COMPANY can hold the copyright... at end of said time limit it gets turned over to the artist (say 10 years) If the artist is dead.. it goes public as far as it going on past their life time... if the person is smart they made enough money with it and left some to their family in a will or trust or whatever (just like any other normal person has to do)
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
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
How is that different from me having to work for years before I can rise up through the ranks in my company, or leave and start my own company?
Also a better way to make money is to be a record company executive, instead of trying to be a musician. Trying to get rich AND famous is a dream for losers. There are much more reliable ways to make tons of money than being a star (movie, sports or pop).
A some musicians get bitten by the Jazz bug during their rise in skill, and never become rich and famous. Not much money in Jazz, but musicians seem very dedicated to it. whatever makes you happy really.
But I think the question is, just because it takes some talent to be a top novelist, rich pop star, etc. why do they get a century long monopoly on their creations? Why not extend the same benefits to professional athletes, investment bankers and brain surgeons. They all had to work hard to be where they are, and none of them can earn royalties into future generations.
This is especially interesting to consider when you realize that a professional athlete can't continue to play into old age. Their body wears out and they eventually retire. While musicians like Mick Jagger can play for many many years (he's a grandfather), but still able to play and make money. I would argue he could continue to have a vast fortune without life-time copyright protections.
Why do we need a huge infrastructure of litigation and copyright enforcement? what benefits does it give society? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some sort of socialist, far from it. I am strongly support that individuals should have many rights and privileges and individuals should be protected from broad community interference. But also I don't think immortal corporations and organizations should have as many rights as human individuals do. sometimes it seems like they have more, but maybe it's power that money can buy.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I heard it slightly differently, but there surely can't be a coincidence that whenever Ferrari announce a new hypercar (F40, F50, Enzo, FXX) that the Floyd suddenly break silence again...
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
...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
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
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
Actually, Andrew Gowers (chairman of the copyright review) said that there is a solid economic case for reducing copyright - but that only political reality prevented his panel from recommending such an action. Traditionally, big copyright has represented reduction in copyright term as expropriating their income without due compensation. Perverse, I know, but there you go. We could just reduce copyright terms for future works, and see if artists create less. If they create at the same rate, it must mean that copyright was too long.
--Ng
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!
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
>So perhaps I shouldn't have said "all the music anyone would want" since that is subjective.
Perhaps you should have said "all the music". Does anyone know of an estimate of how much space it would take up to store literally every piece of music ever professionally recorded? A few dozen terabytes? It's not even surprising that such amounts of data will fit on thumb drives in a couple of years...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
You get the idea.
Could I set up a business in the UK selling early Elvis Presley music without paying Elvis Presley Enterprises ?