Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

20-Year Copyright Extensions Coming To Europe

Posted by Soulskill on from the hoarding-acorns-for-the-long-winter dept.

unlametheweak points out a story at Ars Technica which begins: "After a UK government-led commission said that the current 50-year term for musical copyrights was fine, and the government last year publicly agreed that there was no need to extend the term, culture minister Andy Burnham yesterday made the logical follow-up announcement that yes, the government would now push for a 20-year extension on copyright. Turns out, it's the moral thing to do. Actually, by framing the issue as a 'moral case,' Burnham gets to sidestep the entire issue of logic. Critics have already begun to charge that he is ignoring actual evidence and the well-regarded conclusions of the Gowers Report (PDF), not to mention previous government policy. But when the issue becomes a moral one and the livelihood of aging performers is at stake, it's suddenly easier to avoid cost/benefit analysis."

4 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Petition here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For all the good it might do:

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NoTermExtension/

  2. Re:I don't get it... by mqduck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sigh. Starting at paragraph 6, halfway down the page: "In any event, a push for term extension is being made across Europe. While the UK says it will work to extend musical copyright from 50 to 70 years, the European Union is considering a plan (backed by Commissioner Charlie McCreevy) to extend musical copyrights to 95 years."

    --
    Property is theft.
  3. Mod previous post down by ErkDemon · · Score: 3, Informative
    No, you (and a lot of other people) have totally failed to understand what this story is about.

    Please read and attempt to understand:

    IT'S ABOUT RIGHTS TO PAYMENTS FOR THE USE OF EXISTING RECORDINGS.

    Recordings. Not songwriter copyrights.

    So your example is crap. The case simply doesn't apply to it. If your hypothetical struggling musician accidentally sold the rights to their hit song fifty years ago, and was hoping that the song would now go public domain, and is against this extension for the reasons that you gave, then the musician is an idiot, because,

    1. ... that's not how copyright law works. Their song wasn't about to go PD.
    2. ... this proposed legislation doesn't affect the copyright expiration date of the song in any way, and
    3. ... the extension is designed to allow them to continue receiving performance royalties based on the recordings that they made fifty years ago. Without the extension, their remaining rights to their old performances disappears, too.
    --
    Eric Baird
  4. Re:DRM by Lousewort+Logger · · Score: 4, Informative

    The DMCA makes it illegal to bypass any copyright protection measures, and does not state that it's ok to bypass such measures after 50, 70 or 100 years.

    Actually, the DMCA does not make it illegal to bypass technological protection measures on works NOT protected under Title 17.

    Sorry to disappoint, but take a look at what James Boyle, an expert in intellectual property law, says on the subject in His Book It's true- the DMCA makes old copyright law, and the span of years, largely irrelevant.