EU Proposes Retroactive Copyright Extension

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has unveiled a plan to retroactively extend musical copyrights by 45 years, which would make EU musical copyrights last 95 years total. Why? They're worried that musicians won't continue to collect royalties when they retire and this will give them an additional 45 years during which they won't have to produce any new music. Perhaps the only good point is that the retroactive extensions won't take effect for any works which aren't marketed in the first year after the extension. Additionally, while there are many non-musical retirees wishing they could get paid for 95 years after they finish working, McCreevy has not announced any new plans to help them."

Comments

Re:The summary overlooked the other reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I reside in the European Union and listen mainly to recordings of contemporary art music that were produced with the aid of state subsidies, since they probably wouldn't be profitable on their own. Even if the government taxes the sale of the CD, it's still a net loss for them. Governments here have no qualm with offering free music. Their support of the arts is one thing that keeps quality of life constantly high here.

Re:Who really gets paid?

[TRRosen]

Exactly. Artists never get any money from royalties after the first few years because the labels take most of it through creative bookkeeping. The artists only get money when there's a lot coming in.

Add to that the fact that most new artists lose all there copyrights to the labels by contract and you'll find the only ones not getting screwed by the extension is the labels. Infact for the most part many artists will lose more money since the labels "own" most of their songs they will have to pay royalties to the labels every time the perform them!!!

This is why I voted against the constitution ...

[Aceticon]

... it would give even more power to the European Commission.

They're a bunch of unelected bureaucrats which do not in any way consider the interests of the EU citizens but instead bend over backwards to serve the interests of those corporation which will give them well paid jobs once they've done their time in the European Commission.

(notice how all help-the-industry-f**k-the-consumers proposals of late have come from the commission)

Good thing the Irish brought down the sham attempt at bringing back the EU constitution through the back door that was the Lisbon Treaty.

The funny part is that I'm actual pro-EU and actually feel European. The concept is good, it's just that some EU institutions are degraded and corrupt and need to be eliminated or thoroughly remade.

We need elected legislators instead of these puppets.

Re:Who really gets paid?

[Mr2001]

The only reason I can't use your car or house when you aren't using it is because of artificial laws saying I can't and granting you protection from such actions - whats the difference? I deprive you of something?

Yes, that's the difference. A pretty important one.

Why is that important?

Because if you take my car, I won't be able to use it. I will have been harmed by your actions. Harming people is bad.

On the other hand, if you copy my song/program/movie, I won't have been harmed: I'll still have everything I had before you made that copy. (I might wish you had given me some money for it, but that money was never mine anyway, no matter how hard I was wishing. I might be sad about that, but I won't have suffered any actual loss.)

Surely sharing is a good thing?

Sharing is usually a good thing, but not when someone is harmed in the process. Surely you already knew that?