Slashdot Mirror


20-Year Copyright Extensions Coming To Europe

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."

6 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, It's called Cliff Richard

  2. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does Europe have their own version of Steamboat Willy?

    The thing I don't get is reference to Europe in the summary and the headline.

    Yes, UK is part of Europe (though most of us on the continent think them as barely Europeans and as far as I have understood they think the same way) but in this world situation saying that something is coming to Europe would imply that EU is now doing something.

    And well, there has been all kinds of suggestions (that haven't passed) about extending copyright in EU too (such as extending it to 95 years) but as far as I understood from TFA this has nothing to do with them...

  3. Re:How sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are exactly right, your time would have been better put towards something you enjoy or benefit from in some way. To be sure, no government in history -- democracy or otherwise -- has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced its level of power or revenue. Governments only get bigger, more powerful, and more expensive over their lifetimes, and if history is any indication, this will always be the case. The only things which can cause a government to reduce its level of power are (1) war, or (2) economic collapse -- neither of which are desirable from either perspective (the ruled or the ruler).

    So what's in that for those of us who would prefer a government strictly limited in power and revenue? Absolutely nothing. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that life is too short to get hung up on something that will never happen. That's why I simply don't play the game -- after all, THEY are the ones who want to control me, not the other way around. I don't want to control anybody, so why would I participate in a game where the prize is control (the special "right" to employ coercion as your means) over others?

    All we can do is keep a low profile and try to enjoy the limited time we have on this planet, while the power-hungry fight it out among themselves.

  4. I want guaranteed 'easy life', too! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work in software and my company is about to be RIF'd by 15%.

    so, not only do I _NOT_ get any royalties from the lines of code I wrote, but I get my job outsourced and then I get fired.

    cobra runs out and if I can't afford healthcare, I could go broke and be homeless.

    is society taking care of ME at all?

    hardly!

    why the fuck should society take care of aging musicians, then?

    it aint right and we all know it.

    I put as much sweat and talent into my code as any damned musician does, these days. why do THEY have lobbies to grant them legal powers to harass customers and sue them but us programmers can't do squat?

    it aint right. kids today see that and so they rebel. more power to you, kids; the future lies with you and not the old guys..

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. From the article by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It's only right that someone who created or contributed to something of real value gets to benefit for the full course of their life," he said.

    So glad to hear you say that, Mr. Burnham. I have a few letters here for you. Here's the royalty bill from the farmer who grew the corn that you consumed on March 17, 1983 (after all, he created something of real value to you -- without it and other food like it, you would have starved.) Here's the bill from the guy you hired to paint your house on June 23, 1996. The other seventy-three bags of bills like them are waiting just outside your front door -- your prompt payment will be appreciated.

  6. Re:How sad by laddiebuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never, ever in history. Except perhaps just recently in the very country we are discussing, when Gordon Brown came to power. In his first act as prime minister, he transferred several significant powers to the Commons.

    Why don't you, especially as an American, stop the right-wing scaremongering over the politics of a country which you have no more intimate an understanding of than your daily newspaper? Instead you could work on grass-roots campaigns, perhaps get involved in politics, or a number of other constructive things you could do if you stopped assuming that all government is bad and unfixable.