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."
...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
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
...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
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!