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."
Problem solved then. All Cliff and Sir Paul have to do is buy property with their earnings and rent it out.
No need for any special legislation at all.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
According to their lyrics, they preferred a yellow submarine
Who the hell builds 5 acre properties and then rents them for 2000 a month?
You build 1/20th acre properties and rent them for 2000 a month.
150 sq metres? That's around 1500 square foot. At least where I live you can rent out a 3 bed 800 square foot house for £800 a month, and that's on grounds of around 20ftx50ft. That's 1/40th of an acre. Such a house, ready built, will cost you £200,000 to buy. You usually use the rent to offset the mortgage payments (zero cost, as long as there are people who need to rent), giving you an entire property you own in 30 years time (equity) with an income (albeit £800 a month, non-inflation adjusted).
At the bottom of the
Who the hell builds 5 acre properties and then rents them for 2000 a month?
You build 1/20th acre properties and rent them for 2000 a month.
Nobody does... All new constructions here seem to be apartment buildings where an old house was torn down. Much better return of investment. I just did a quick look on what a 150 square metre house would cost. Those are all old houses, that I assume were inherited and the person that owns it has no interest in selling. That's my guess.
You usually use the rent to offset the mortgage payments (zero cost, as long as there are people who need to rent), giving you an entire property you own in 30 years time (equity) with an income
True that's a way you can do it, but still, unless that same rent covers the repairs and maintenance of the building over those 30 years, you end up with a 30 year old completely obsoleted old building that is ripe for being torn down. (Okay, at least requires significant restoration) You sill haven't made a cent in all those years, but yes, you now have a crap building.
You do understand that it isn't as simple as the parent posted suggested, eh? "Build house, collect rent" is not as simple as it seems.
Of course, you have the house, but now you need to invest for the restoration. You still haven't "made" any money either. It's all in the real estate. It's not as if you could sit there for 30 years on your lazy ass and collect money from your real estate.
It's not as if that rent magically appeared on your account every month and you could use it as you wanted. No, it went directly into paying your mortgage. Sure, in the end somebody else paid your house, and it is yours, but only after 30 years you can even think of making money from the house in the sense that you can live of the rent somebody else pays you for having the right to live in your real estate.
Oh, and another small thing: don't mix up ares and acres. Very different things: 5 are is 0.123552691 acres . So your 1/20 acre property actually is about 2 are. Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
This is exactly why I hate Imperial units.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Well, true, but you're not going to be living from it. (Unless you have a couple dozen houses) That's why I posted the reply to the original poster. Not that you cannot make money with real estate. You clearly can, I never disputed that. However not in the way the original poster suggested.
"So, now please, explain in clear text how you can make a profit by collecting rent?"
/. list formatting...
I imagine that the guy who owns my apartment complex could do so, and that he'd be curious why you seem to think it's impossible.
Anyway, for many years my dad was in the business of collecting rent, and he at one point described the technique he used to me. I'll use standard
1. Buy a large house that either needs work (and is therefore cheap), or is foreclosed (and therefore really cheap and hopefully in decent shape, though you'll need to bother with one of those pesky auctions). He mentioned that at one point he actually knew a mortgage officer at a bank, who would clue him in about homes that were slated for foreclosure, he would then talk to the owners, offer them a few thousand dollars cash, remind them that when the house foreclosed they wouldn't get a penny, and after they transferred the deed to him he'd pay it off with a mortgage from the same friend; IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this part is illegal (statute of limitations is up, don't even bother), and certainly unethical. New properties need something really shiny, like hundreds of units or waterfront, to be immediately profitable for renting, such properties obviously skip step 2 since that was presumably done during construction.
2. Fix it up and add partition walls or other barriers to make the house into as many apartments as reasonably possible.
3. Start renting out all available ASAP, and don't go crazy with the money, most of it will have to go into mortgage payments and maintenance. Another strategy my dad, mentioned was to get in touch with the local welfare agency, there are often programs which will pay rent on a place and use it to house extremely low income individuals and families; the one he mentioned paid rent even during months of non-occupation (say, if no one needed the apartment or during the standard fix up time after an occupant leaves) and allowed him to interview tenants beforehand and only accept the ones he felt were mostly reasonable, not exactly a cash cow, but it was steady money and earned some political and community capital to boot.
4. ???
5. Profit!!! Remember, since every last penny is being sqeezed out of each property, and all of it that isn't needed for maintenance is going into paying off the commercial mortgages (which don't force the mortgage to take a minimum number of years to pay off, but don't feature exotic rate schedules or frighteningly low APRs) they can actually be paid off in just a couple of years. In the mean time, live cheaply and be sure to keep all of the properties in good shape so they keep making money. In 5-10 years when they start being paid off, and the $700/month/apartment that was going into mortgage payments can start going into your pocket, you'll be one happy landlord.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
I think the GP was just explaining that there are other ways to "get paid for what you're doing now, even fifty years later", which most people accept as morally right. To "renting out property"[1], we can add "putting the money in a bank" and "buying stock" to name a few. My great-aunt (mother's aunt) was a lowly telephone operator who took advantage of a program to invest in AT&T. She recently passed away, and my mother inherited a lot of telco stock that resulted from that early investment. There was definitely more than fifty years between when my great-aunt bought the stock and the last dividend payment she received.
[1]Incidentally, this was one of the medieval ways to circumvent the usury laws. Buying property and renting it out has all the features of an interest-bearing account. Supposedly, the German word for interest, Zins comes from the Latin census, a term referring to the sum of one's wealth, usually land at the time.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
It happens all the time in Britain. The "buy to let" brigade are despised by pretty much everyone. The working class don't like them, because the rent charged by private landlords often exceeds the cost of a mortgage on a similar property -- except that there are no similar properties available to buy, because they've all been bought up by "buy-to-let" speculators. And the middle class don't like them, because they resent the thought of living next door to students, immigrant workers and assorted proles.
Fortunately, the bottom is about to drop right out of the UK property market anytime soon. Maybe then we'll get a government with the balls to tax the rich and spend it on Council houses.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Fortunately, the bottom is about to drop right out of the UK property market anytime soon.
They were saying that 15 years ago. Before I bought a house, lived in it, sold it and moved out of the country.
Don't hold your breath.
Rich
Sorry, should be
Before I bought a house, lived in it, sold it and moved out of the country and bought a bigger house with the profit. (That original house is now worth more than 50% what I sold it for too).
Rich
I bought not long after you. That was when houses were cheap and mortgages were expensive (although they never imagined the bank base rate falling as low as it eventually did). Over the years, houses have gone up and mortgages have come down. Now mortgages are starting to go up again.
I'm not going to lose out, I don't think; my house is still very unlikely to fall below what I paid for it, and I'll own it outright soon enough to beat interest rate rises. The neighbourhood is a good one (if you can conveniently ignore the fact that you have to walk slightly uphill to reach the river) and it's not as though I need a bigger place, so I won't be needing to move anytime soon. But I feel for anybody buying now, because they are at serious risk of being stuck with a house that's worth less than they paid for it. I don't know what you can do in that situation really, apart from economise like mad and try to ride it out, hoping for the market to pick up again.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!