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*

[IndieKid]

I dunno, if the remaining Beatles survive another 6 years then their early work will be out of copyright in their lifetime.

Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before that.

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*

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before that.

Cliff Richards is still alive? I've always assumed he was either a hologram or part of a "weekend at Bernie's" type situation.

Re:*heh*

[cliffski]

It can be arranged. however, in return, like most musicians you will have to work the first dozen or so years of your life for virtually nothing, with no guarantee whatsoever of ever making a penny from any of it.
If you want to get started here are some links:

http://www.guitartricks.com/

http://www.learnpianoonline.com/welcome.html

http://www.studydrums.com/

The entertainment industry is open to anyone, male or female, black or white, and has no real barriers to entry. there are very cheap starter guitars and keyboards out there...

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, but in that case, it's probably only fair not to whine about the 1% (or less) of musicians who were prepared to take all those risks, and saw it pay off for them. It's like whineing about lottery winners, when you weren't prepared to risk your dollar on buying one.

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*

[timmarhy]

lets be real now. most people who get their break in entertainment get it because of people they know. you can have all the talent in the world and practice all you want but the significant barrier to entry is that there's 10000000 acts out there, most of them suck balls and knowing someone persoanlly who will give you a shot is what it takes. "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"

WTF? how does the other 99.9% you refer to avoid all these pit falls by having a "normal" (what ever the fuck that is) job? you still get rejections and sarcasm from people in any job, no one even has the certainty of making minimum wage for that matter. If you find a job where i can avoid/have all the above, please tell me, because i'd love to take it.

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*

[gnasher719]

'' I sure wish that I could get to keep collecting money for 50 years for work that I'm doing today. ''

Easy. Build a house. Rent it out.

Re:*heh*

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:*heh*

[Corporate Troll]

That assumes that you can rent it in 50 years without doing any work for it. A 50 year old house without maintenance in its lifetime is only worth the terrain it's build on. Which brings us to the next point: unless you have a terrain, you have to buy one, which means you need to have money in order to do this. Don't say "mortage", because you'll be working to pay the mortgage off. It also assumes that you can build a house on your own from architecture to building the roof. I doubt you can do that, so it means you are going to pay to build that house.

Where I live, you need to count about 750000€ to build a smallish house (~150 square metre) on a smallish terrain (5 are). Even assume you have that kind of money, and you manage to rent it at 2000€/month (which seems to be the asking rent for such a house), you will need more than 30 years to get break-even! At that point your house will need significant repairs...

I don't think your house example works out....

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*

[ContractualObligatio]

Sorry?

There are indeed laws for patents, copyrights and trademarks that make it possible for business people to continue to profit from original work their employees performed decades ago. And leasing agreements. And stock ownership plans.

No need to feel left out, you have the same laws at your disposal.

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*

[Ngwenya]

If anything, we should be looking at reducing the length of copyright for written works (books and stuff) to match that for music.

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

Re:*heh*

[CarpetShark]

I dunno, if the remaining Beatles survive another 6 years then their early work will be out of copyright in their lifetime.

Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before that.

So? The point of copyright is NOT to pay artists. That's a side-effect. The point is to encourage creativity in society. In previous and current incarnations of copyright law, this is done by paying artists royalties for a given period of time. If I understand correctly, this period of time has constantly increased.

I would argue that the period of time should be DECREASING. As more and more artists exposed to more and more global ideas are able to evolve new works more quickly, the legitimacy of holding on to now-outdated work quickly falls away.

Long copyright terms made more sense when the latest popular music was the same stuff some classical artist created 15 years ago -- when it just spread far enough for everyone to learn about and for others to begin dreaming up variations on. Today, music is distributed worldwide in seconds or less, and is absorbed into a huge global consciousness of styles, tastes, remixes, etc.

Music should not be copyrighted for more than a few years, imho.

Re:*heh*

[timrichardson]

I thought copyright expired 50 years after the death of the copyright owner, not 50 years after publication of the work. How is Cliff Richard going to lose royalties when he is still alive?

Re:*heh*

[MyGirlFriendsBroken]

If you find a job where i can avoid/have all the above, please tell me, because i'd love to take it.

If you're looking for a job without sarcasm then please do not work with me

Re:*heh*

[timrichardson]

Ok, he would lose the copyright on the sound recording 50 years after publication, but the copyright to the lyrics and music are life + 70 years.

Re:*heh*

[MetalPhalanx]

And tell me, what do you know of the music industry? Or are you just another arm-chair critic? Do you think "Knowing someone" is all that it takes? Let me ask a question... If your boss gave you half a million dollars and said to hire a team for whatever important project, would you take someone you knew who wasn't in the higher end of the talent pool? That'd be asking to lose your job. It's the same thing here. "Knowing someone" is enough to possibly get the talent shark to pop your CD in ahead of the other 50 CDs he's been given in the last week. It won't get you anything else. Unfortunately, they only choose the bands that they think will make them the most money, not the most musically diverse or interesting.

Yeah, knowing someone who is in the business will help you, but probably less so than knowing someone who already works for a company that you want to work for. As far as putting up with shit, musicians put up with some rather slimy people. Not to provide too much of a generalization but bar and club owners tend to not be the most wholesome crowd. Imagine busting your ass, pulling in a crowd of about 100-150 people @ $10 a ticket each + whatever the bar makes in drinks, and then getting paid $300, which is then split 5 ways... $60 per head is not really a lot of money. Or you could drive your collective asses to another city, probably in a large vehicle which isn't too good with the mileage, only to get told the gig is canceled/postponed and someone forgot to tell you. It'd be like going to work one morning and getting told to go back home, that they didn't need you that week and you weren't getting paid.

And no-one ever said you don't get rejections and sarcasm and all those lovely things from other jobs... But musicians put up with more of it than many. I'm speaking as a musician local to my city, who is trying to branch out at the moment.

Re:*heh*

[Bastard of Subhumani]

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?

Apologies if you don't, but most people get what's called a salary during that period.

Re:*heh*

[EllisDees]

>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...

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*

[el_monkeyo]

But then if you spent you time and effort or money building a house that you rent out for instance, then you don't loose any right to charge rent after 50 years. Similarly a 50 year old railway or factory doesn't become public domain.

I also don't think you can really compare an old performance of an athlete to an old performance of a musician. Unless the athlete invented a running (or whatever), they're just doing what loads of people have done before, but a bit quicker. Whilst that may be true or some musicians, I think there's a lot more residual value in a 50 year old recording of an original song by the original artist than of a 50 year old recording of an athlete.

Don't get me wrong, I think the big music companies are complete bastards, and I especially don't think anyone should be able to charge 100% royalties for sampling or covering a song, but I don't think you can really legitimately imply a great musician should just get paid an hourly rate for the time it takes them to write a song.

Re:*heh*

[Orange Crush]

What many people fail to realize is that a business also employs people while an entertainer rarely does

A concert employs dozens, if not hundreds, from ticket takers to sound and lighting engineers. How many people work in a recording studio, or the factory that presses discs? Heck, even a one-man-band at a coffee shop or bar might have some kid working the door, or at the very least keeps the establishment's own employees busy, sometimes requiring extra staff depending on how big of a crowd is drawn.

An entertainer has the crowd's attention focused on them by the very nature of what they do. Just because you don't notice the army of black-clad figures behind the scenes putting it all together and making it work, doesn't mean they're absent or unnecessary.

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.

Re:*heh*

[msuarezalvarez]

Terrabytes... I wonder what they use in Mars.

Re:*heh*

[utopianfiat]

He's talking about talentless, unoriginal, sellout whores who are signed with a major label that often litigate against their customers. They make a lot of money and a good way to get signed with a major label is to know a guy who knows a guy whose dick you have to suck for a couple cool million.

Re:*heh*

[clem]

If you're looking for a job without sarcasm then pleeeeease work with meeeee. Cause that'd be something I'd reeeeally like. Fixed that for you.

Re:*heh*

[Z0mb1eman]

And that's fine. Copyright terms have very little to do with those employed at concerts or recording and distributing music.

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."

Re:Good.

[TechForensics]

Agree wholeheartedly. Our culture has been co-opted by big companies, and it belongs to them more than to us. We ought not tolerate private ownership of our culture.

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.

Re:50 years?

[MosesJones]

the artist is probably richer than his wildest dreams

Keith Richards has some pretty wild dreams....

I understand the point of the MI

[Opportunist]

"Britpop" was the big thing in the 60s. Look around your charts of the 60s and you'll find a lot of british bands that made music that's still awesome (Beatles, The Who, The Small Faces, ...). Much of what's been done back then wasn't a one day hype record like so much music we got today.

Come 2015, you'll see a LOT of good music becoming free, free to share and free to enjoy. I can well see some kind of "retro" movement, not out of the usual reasons, but this time out of the reason that the music was good and then it's free. Kinda like an "anti-MI" movement. Music as a political statement again, though with a very different twist than it had in the early 70s.

But hey, I'd think it's cool when gramps and grandson bang their heads to the same tunes. :)

It's not only money that's at stake. People might find that the music back then was actually really "better" than the crap spewed by today's hype ... I don't wanna write artist 'cause it doesn't fit. What really is at stake is that people have actually a very viable alternative, even for Joe Average who doesn't know jack about the indie scene. There's well known music that's actually also pretty good, and it's going into public domain. If I was dependent on selling music, I'd be shaking in my bones.

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. ;)

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.

Re:Excellent, govnt. got it right for once

[sa1lnr]

I used to work for what was Pink Floyds P.A. hire company (http://www.britanniarow.com/)

In the late eighties when they reformed and started touring again there was a running joke amongst the road crew.

Q) Why have Pink Floyd started touring again?

A) Because Nick Mason has a wife and 102 Ferrari's to support. ;)

Re:Excellent, govnt. got it right for once

[iainl]

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...

List of countries' copyright length

[dvice_null]

List of countries' copyright length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_co pyright_length

AFAIK the EU has ruled that length should be 70 years, so this should make UK almost unique in the Europe. But there are several other countries that use 50 years. Personally I think the copyright should hold only certain amount of years, since publishing. The current law assumes that people die relatively young (under 200 years old), while some scientist bulieve that this will change in the near future and people could live thousands of years.

Re:List of countries' copyright length

[Ngwenya]

AFAIK the EU has ruled that length should be 70 years, so this should make UK almost unique in the Europe

I think you might be mistaking the authorial copyright (life + 70 years) versus the mechanical copyright (50 years from publication). In the case of music, the composer(s) are assigned the copyright, so that anyone covering the song must give royalties to the composer. The mechanical copyright extends only to the actual recording of a particular song. So, in a few years, the Beatles tracks will enter the public domain, but anyone wishing to re-record a Lennon-McCartney Beatles number will still need to render money to Paul McCartney (and I guess Yoko Ono).

The complaints from the record labels was that the mechanical copyright needs to be extended to 95 years. I think they're content to leave the authorial copyright where it is.

I don't think the UK is out of wack with the rest of the EU. We harmonised copyright terms in 1995 (which was a sodding disaster, since films moved from 50 years from first showing, to life of director/screenwriter/music composer + 70. Thus making film copyright essentially forever).

--Ng

I'm all for extending copyright

[rolfwind]

I think it should be extended so much so, that eventually the descendents of the Grimm brothers can sue Disney into oblivion for infringing on their works.

Re:I'm all for extending copyright

[FiniteElementalist]

The only things scarier than zombies are litigious zombies.

Agreed.

[Macthorpe]

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.

Re:Agreed.

[jadin]

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.

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.

Re:Agreed.

[spottedkangaroo]

You're thinking of insurance.

I make a good amount of money at my job. If I die is my employer required to pay my wife and kid for 50 years? Or do they pay life insurance premiums?

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.

Re:Agreed.

[TechForensics]

Take a leaf from the Rule Against Perpetuities (a law limiting the length of time after your death you can control who gets to assume ownership of your property): The duration of a life in being (pick someone young, like your son or grandson) plus twenty-one years.

That's worked for real property conveyance for more than five hundred years.

Changing the rules is one thing

[Asic Eng]

If you change the rules and say: from now on new works will have an extended period of copyright - ok those are new rules. If you extend copyright on already existing works, that's a different matter. It means you take something which currently belongs to the public, and give it to some private entity.

For someone to lobby parliament to assign them ownership of a public good for free, I think they should at least show that they are either: extremely poor, or: a worthy cause. I think it's disgusting when super rich people ask for handouts.

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...

Software next?

[ItsLenny]

...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...

Re:Software next?

[ItsLenny]

WOW

I was actually just being facetious.

HOWEVER.. with a longer time line (as you suggest) it reads as a very good idea for reasons you already stated which I won't reiterate.

however 20 years would leave us before even windows 3.1 10 years would give us 95 to play with.. but admittedly since there are still features of windows 95 AND 3.1 in vista... maybe some secrets are still too new

Re:Software next?

[TheRaven64]

however 20 years would leave us before even windows 3.1 10 years would give us 95 to play with Of course, it would only give us the binaries, not the source. More interesting, perhaps, is that this year 2.10BSD and SysV R3.2 would enter the public domain, as would Minix 1.0. The original UNIX releases would all be in the public domain already, and so would early versions of VMS. I don't know if QNX was source-available, but if it were then we'd also have QNX 2.0 already.

Re:Software next?

[TheRaven64]

I wouldn't give developers more than 5 years copyright for any of their works, maybe we could add another 5 year extension if they share the source and under law after the 10 years the code would be open source and in the public domain. This would have a significant negative impact on GPL'd software. Linux 2.4.18 and 2.5.18 would be entering the public domain now, and anything useful in them could be scooped up and put into proprietary software. Windows XP would also be in the public domain, but the source code wouldn't be available so it wouldn't be much use to anyone (and the service packs wouldn't be in the public domain, neither would any security fixes from after 2002, so you couldn't legally use it for anything requiring moderate security).

One way of countering this would be to make copyright duration inversely proportional to the strictness of the original license. Make the base term five years, and then add two years for each of the extra rights granted (e.g. source availability, distribution, modification, distribution of modifications, distribution without source). Software released under BSD or MIT type licenses not falling into the public domain for a long time doesn't cause anyone many problems, since the code is sufficiently close to being public domain already that most people can treat it as if it is. Think of it as public domain on an instalment plan; if you disclaim some of the rights granted by copyright, you get to hang onto the others for longer.

Re:Why can't the authour decide?

[ItsLenny]

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)

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!

Remixing

[gingerTabs]

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

Re:Why can't the authour decide?

[gnalre]

I agree. One of the issues with extending a copyright term is by increasing the value of the copyright you increase the incentive of record companies to get artists to sign over there copyright rights at the the start of there careers.

Such a move is more likely to help large record companies than artists in the long run. If there was some guarantee that artists were likely to benefit, then I would be more amenable, However record companies have very good lawyers so I doubt there is a way to do this.

Misconceptions

[coalrestall]

First off, it's the copyright on *recordings*, not the songs themselves that stand at 50 years. The songs themselves are covered for life + 70 years. Secondly, when they recorded the songs, they did so with the full knowledge that they would have the exclusive right to distribute and profit from that recording for 50 years and no more. If they had thought better of it at the time, they may have decided that was not a good deal and not recorded the song, so they're in no position to start complaining they've been treated unfairly now. If the incentive was strong enough to get them to create, then the period was set well enough in their favour that it needs no extension. Thirdly, only a handful of the most successful artists (and their record companies) will ever benefit from this, so the remaining vast majority which are already out of print will disappear and be lost forever, at great expense to British cultural heritage. Now, if they were proposing a system whereby the period could be extended selectively, that might be worth considering. It should involve them reinvesting though, so it should cost them say 10% of the past 50 years' sales to renew for another 50 years. If the song's really that popular still, they'll make that back in 5 years, leaving another 45 years profit. Of course, if they're just being greedy, which they invariably will be, then it won't be worth it for them to do so. They should then feel free instead to create new art they can profit from instead.

No campaign donations? No bribes?

[Random BedHead Ed]

Sorry, I'm originally from the United States and am therefore confused by this article. It looks a bit like the government in the UK has opted for a well-reasoned, balanced public policy rather than simply doing what a couple large industry cartels were asking them to. How exactly did this happen? Were any campaign donations (or, failing that, bribes) made to members of Parliament by the recording and film industries? I'm trying to figure out what went wrong but TFA doesn't give any details.

Re:Not all dead

[remmelt]

These people have been paid for FIFTY YEARS for a one-time job!

If they had a hit song, they're likely rich. Richer than riding a desk for 50 years, probably.

In the mean time, they could have invested the money and have gone from Rich to Very Rich Indeed. Or, you know, they could have made another recording. A second album. They could have gone on tour, making a lot of money with tickets. They could have decided to sell goodies, like tshirts and stuff (RHCP used to not sell tshirts, when they did they bought a nice house in Hollywood for it. All of them. (source: documentary on TV)).

Your examples, however great artists they are or were, are not people we need to feel very sorry for in a monetary sense. Monetarily sorry. They have ample cash to live out there lives like a king without having to lift another finger.

Besides, they won't be recording any new songs when they die, so who benefits?

Yes, who will benefit? Their offspring? Perhaps. Stella McCartney is doing well for herself though. So is Lennon's kid. I don't think any of the Stones' offspring need to worry about their direct future. Madonna? Britney? Set for a couple of lifetimes.
The record labels will benefit, that's who. Too bad that the record labels aren't creative in any way. They don't deserve the monopoly granted by the government. They will never be able to record the next Satisfaction or Love Me Do. They have bands for that. Sure, a label has its role and should be compensated, but not through a government granted monopoly that wasn't even intended to be used in this sense. And to see these old bats act as their spokesperson is sickening.

Ukians? Thinking of voting Conservative?

[maroberts]

...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.

Re:Ukians? Thinking of voting Conservative?

[jez9999]

How about, just don't? David Cameron has proven himself to be pretty much Blair 2, turning the Conservatives into New Labour 2 and raping many of their best policies. He has an antiquated view on many things, including the electoral system, drugs, prisons (let's build more and throw more in!), and many other things.

Vote Lib Dem... hell, I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'd rather see New Labour in under Brown than Cameron in. Blair, OK, I would've preferred Cameron, but Brown is actually better. Not much, but Cameron sucks balls. Don't vote for him.

Change of government

[Flying pig]

Well, we had a Prime Minister who was widely perceived as ensuring that your Mr. Bush kept his anus nice and clean. Now we have a new Prime Minister who wants to distance himself from his predecessor (owing to a few things like Iraq, corruption scandals, being in hock to corporates). Said new Prime Minister is also from a Scots Presbyterian background and probably is not too keen on the modern music industry. I guess these things trickle down a bit.

Re:Change of government

[SuurMyy]

Until, of course, you get the next PM that wants to distance herself from the now new PM... ;)

Re:Not only about money.

[lachlan76]

So extend the moral rights beyond the period of copyright. It solves the problem that you mention.

Called them on the Bull

[maroberts]

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.

14 years

[mbone]

I have come to feel that the public would be best served by only granting monopolies for 14 years, as was the original US term. Current terms are much too long, and result in a great mass of material from the past that is blocked.

ah Cliff...

[joe 155]

Cliff Richards, the man who made a hit song out of singing the lords prayer to the tune of Auld lang syne... Granted I think that the money went to charity, but he couldn't claim he didn't make money out of it indirectly, as well as it raising his profile again and allowing him to win awards. Do they not know what seemingly (or actually) eternal copyright would mean...

Jesus: ...So, I see you own a copy of the Bible
Cliff: Yes my Lord, I read it all the time. It's the best book in the world.
Jesus: Ah, but the thing is... Me and my dad wrote that... and you never paid us... I heard the other day that that's theft. Hell, if it was just me, I might let it slide, but it was in the commandments and all. Can't have one rule for you and another for those who stole a physical copy of books from shops... time to burn.

Re:No campaign donations? No bribes?

[steve_l]

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

Re:Not only about money.

[1u3hr]

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?

This story is about the copyright of recordings. The copyright on music and lyrics, what you're talking about, last for 70 years after the composer's death. However, I am not sure that you can refuse to allow someone to cover your song in any case, there are compulsory licensing rights in some situations and you get a statutory payment.

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!

Re:50 years....50 secs more like!

[jb.hl.com]

Copyright should not make value judgements about a work's quality or viability, as you seem to be doing. Nor should it only exist for as long as something is popular.

Not saying 50 years isn't too long (it is, 25 years minimum is at least reasonable) but come on.

Fair enough

[ajs318]

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.

second best part of the story missed out

[Fusen]

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

Yes there is.

[BlackCobra43]

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.

No, you're not involved unless you choose to be

[TheAxeMaster]

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. You choose to listen to music, just like you choose (or don't) to read books. You could easily go through your entire life not ever paying a dime for any music and not listening to it. But you choose it, just like most of the rest of us. What they want to do is to restrict your rights in the same way that you are restricted with a book. You can't make a perfect copy very easily or print your own and distribute them. But nobody seems to be up in arms about that and the barrier to entry is just as high for a new author. And sticking your book on a website or myspace isn't as effective as it is in the music industry.
I'm not arguing for the term length, I really think it should be no more than 10 years in any case. Just pointing out what we're willing to swallow with in one industry and its parallels in another.

So what can I copy ?

[Alain Williams]

I live in the UK and am a British citizen. What other conditions need to be met on a 50 year old piece of music ?

• music composed, performed, recorded, bought, to be given to a friend in the UK
• music composed, performed, recorded, bought in the UK to be given to a friend not in the UK
• music composed, performed, recorded in the UK but bought, to be given to a friend not in the UK
• music composed, performed in the UK but recorded, bought, to be given to a friend not in the UK
• music composed in the UK but performed, recorded, bought, to be given to a friend not in the UK

You get the idea.

Could I set up a business in the UK selling early Elvis Presley music without paying Elvis Presley Enterprises ?

That's all work for hire...

[NotQuiteReal]

All the things you describe are works for hire, paid for by the beneficiary of the work.

If you pay the salary of an artist or an author for a work, up front, then you can "give away" the music or book they have written for you, and they only get paid once, just like all the other labors you describe.

Except for a few well known artists, who get an advance AND royalties, there are thousands who toil away without pay - until/unless they can sell their work "later". There is a difference between paying for something "now", a sure deal, and taking the risk of getting your money "later". Just because a work is covered by copyright for "a long time" there is no guarantee that it will be worth anything, but without copyright, it FOR SURE will be worth nothing (to the creator).

Almost every copyrighted item that people are bitching about not being "free", is simply "entertainment".

Nobody "needs" to buy mere entertainment, they just "want" it! The very fact that copyrighted material, not counting the media, is an intangible that folks are still willing to pay for argues the very need for a copyright law.

I am not sure what the exact balance WRT copyright law should be, but I am just pointing out there is some need for copyright in the Real World.