Slashdot Mirror
Music Copyright In EU Extended To 70 Years
rastos1 writes "The European Parliament extended the copyright in the EU for the performers of musical works from 50 to 70 years. The legislation will be reviewed in 3 years. The European Commission will consider extending the scope to audiovisual works too." So performers will collect for 20 more years from the date of performance; composers' rights already extend to 70 years beyond their deaths. Update: 4/26 at 12:15 GMT by SS: Reader rimberg points out that while the copyright extension was passed in the European Parliament, it is now being held up in the Council of Ministers awaiting further debate on the issue.
..and the public.
According to the approved legislation, if producers, 50 years after the publication of a phonogram, do not make it available to the public, performers can ask to terminate the contract they signed to transfer their rights to the label.
That would SO never pass in the US.
The US already grants copyright up to 70 years after the author's death. They're just doing this to harmonize their laws with the United States. But wait, in 2002 the key argument presented to the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft is that we extended copyright to harmonize with the European Union.
If it wasn't for this legislation, we would see in the next decade some great early rock n roll get released into the public domain. :-(
Highlighting shared sentiment? Copyright is after all the balance of artist income and value to society through public works. If society at large believes there to be no balance then the gp was insightful.
14 years.
The US constitution had a similar copyright law from 1789 to 1909, 14 years + 14 year extension if requested, and you had to file for the copyright and the extension no reward for laziness.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creative arts not to make heirs and corporations wealthy.
According to this paper, optimal copyright duration is 14-15 years.
"For every right, an equal responsibility..."
The existence of long-lived copyright corporations like Sony and Disney means artists (not just their descendants and other hangers-on) CAN profit - while living - from proceeds after their deaths. The rights to the music are more valuable now because of the revenue they are expected to generate in the future. Michael Jackson, for instance, might have to sell off the rights to his music to stay financially afloat. But if those rights were to perish with him, the companies who will soon be bidding for those rights would bid much less.
Prince is still averaging an album every year and I'm pretty sure they are profitable. He is a far cry from Michael Jackson.
Until you're paying royalties to the descendants of Sophocles for Oedipus, you have no moral standing.
And I'm not calling to the people. I'm echoing their screams. Can you not hear them? It's your head they want on a pike.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Prince is most certainly not living on old accomplishments. His commercial viability suffered in the late 1990s, but since then, he's released several albums that have sold very well (his last four have all been in the top 3 in the charts), went on a tour in 2004 that brought in nearly $90 million. He's still writing songs for other artists on top of all of that.
He may not be a friend of those in favor of copyright reform (he's about as much a copyright Nazi as Bono), but to suggest that he isn't busting his ass playing and creating music -- and doing so successfully -- is just flat wrong.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You should probably start here: philosophy of copyright (consequentialist theories). Actually, the whole article is probably worth a read.
There are multiple rationales for copyright. You seem to believe in the natural rights of the author and their heirs to control the uses of the work. Wikipedia mentions that the cases you present are related to the concept of personality rights.
In the United States, the U.S. Constitution gives the rationale of "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The view you reference is that that means copyright is a sort of loan from the public to the creator(s) and that copyright exists purely to allow creative works to be sold for a long enough period of time to ensure their creation is sufficiently profitable for it to actually happen -- and no more. That is, copyright is far from being a natural right: it is a necessary evil that should be minimized as much as possible without damaging the creation of new works.
From that perspective, the question is not "Why is copyright bad?" but "Why is copyright good?" based on the belief that all limitations on personal liberty need to be justified.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Monsanto has already done this with farmers using some of their seeds. Monsanto has even gone after farmers who don't use Monsanto seed, but get cross-pollinated from crops that do use the engineered seed.
And BTW...toss out the "Dan Quayle does Spelling" book. It's 'potato' :) (had to toss that one in there)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Are you naive enough to think Britney Spears performed the music with her name on it.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
The copyright terms are "life of creator plus x years." Also, there are different kinds of rights for performance, composition, etc. This does apply to songs as well. A quick google turned up this link: Copyright: Protecting Your Songs
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
She is still making the charts somewhere pretty often. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patti_LaBelle
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012