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.

Comments

Wow, this looks like it actually benefits artists!

[Anonymous Coward]

..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.

Harmony

[slashqwerty]

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.

Re:Harmony

[Simetrical]

70 years in the United States? Yeah, back at the turn of the 20th century. Toward the end of the 20th, the Sonny Bono copyright act extended copyright in the United States to more than a century.

Just check wikipedia

Read your own link. Grandparent is correct about the length of copyright. Sonny-Bono extended the duration of copyright from fifty years after the death of the author to seventy years after the death of the author. Assuming most authors live thirty years or more after they publish a given work, this will often amount to a century or more of copyright, yes. (This is all ignoring works that are written anonymously, pseudonymously, by multiple authors, unpublished, etc.)

However, the summary makes it clear that this isn't seventy years p.m.a., it's seventy years from the date of the performance, and only applies to performances: "So performers will collect for 20 more years from the date of performance; composers' rights already extend to 70 years beyond their deaths." I don't know what the law is in the U.S. right now on duration of copyright for performances, or whether this harmonizes with it at all.

In 1900, by the way, the maximum length of copyright was 28 years from first publication, nowhere close to 70 years. In 1909 it was 56 years, still less than 70. According to, again, your own link.

Re:Insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Optimal Copyright Duration

[NewbieV]

According to this paper, optimal copyright duration is 14-15 years.

Re:Why?

[timeOday]

who really wants Yoko Ono to continue getting money off of Lennon's genius?

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.

Re:Why?

[Martin Blank]

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.

Re:Why is copyright bad?

[AnyoneEB]

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.

Re:Why?

[funkatron]

Are you naive enough to think Britney Spears performed the music with her name on it.