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.

19 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Rog-Mahal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What artist is going to live long enough for this to even matter? Sounds like another way for companies to wring a few more euros from the public.

    1. Re:Why? by m.ducharme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, the 70 years doesn't even start running until after she's dead.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  2. Wow, this looks like it actually benefits artists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ..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.

  3. Make the law absurd by gringofrijolero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and that's how people will treat it. It tears down any pretext of respect.

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
  4. That's okay by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've reduced the copyright duration I'm willing to observe to 0 years.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:That's okay by aaandre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Paying for live performances is great, the money goes to the artist in exchange of their creativity and skill.

      Paying for a performance more than once, and essentially, every time you experience it does not make sense. The artist does not make an effort every time someone hears their song.

      I pay a car mechanic to fix my car and then stop. I don't continue paying them for the rest of my life despite the fact that I continue to enjoy their effort.

      Yes, the artist may invest a lot of time and effort in their creation, and that's why they get money from every member of the audience, for each audience they perform to.

      A recording of a performance is not a performance.

      I know this may sounds harsh. The monetization of everything has created laws that don't make sense, like IP laws. The nature of IP is not material and unlike physical matter, IP is very difficult to fence off and contain. Artists are made successful by their audience, the general public.

      If not for the endlessly greedy corporations still standing between creators and their audience, things could be much simpler, with shorter copyright terms, clear ownership for every piece of media we buy and the ability to share the stuff we like.

      It is not mandatory for every successful artist to become a millionaire. Many programmers, writers, painters, inventors do create useful and beautiful works and never become very rich.

      An idea or a tune may pop in more than one head at the same time. Calling it "mine" and trying to fence it off and make everyone else pay is ridiculous.

    2. Re:That's okay by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would you feel if your boss decided to do the same with your paycheck? Or are you trying to tell us that your work deserves compensation while the work of others does not?

      Actually, that's exactly the way it works for me. I don't get "residuals" on the work I do. The second I stop working, I stop getting paid too, I don't continue receiving money for my work for the rest of my life, despite the fact that it will still be benefitting my employer.

      Those who support copyright are asking for a different standard, not the same, as everyone else gets. If you are employed to do something, you continue getting paid as long as you continue the work and no longer. If you want to get paid into your retirement, either ask for a pension as a condition of your employment (at which you may not be successful) or save and invest money during your working years.

      If, on the other hand, you go into business for yourself, you must continually market and sell the products you offer. And if someone comes up with a technology that means you no longer can make money the way you once did? Tough. Find a new way to sell, find a new product, or file Chapter 11.

      Copyright is an artificially created monopoly. Its like does not exist for anyone else. I don't continue to profit from my work after it's done and sold to someone. I don't get to tell people not to share it without slipping me cash. I don't get to tell them they can't tinker with it and improve it. That's the way it should be.

      Removing copyright would simply level the playing field. Ideas aren't inherently scarce. If you can make money off selling them, or performing certain types of them, or coming up with them for people who enjoy your work, good on you. (People do sell bottled water, and water, at least in the US, is not inherently scarce and is effectively free, so it can work). If not, go find something else to do, and get paid in the same way on the same terms all the rest of us do. Quit whining that you have a "right" to a profit from doing anything at all. You have a right to try. You do not have a right to tell people they cannot share in an attempt to profit from something they could've replicated on their own.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  5. Needs approval of every single member state by Bredero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA doesn't clearly state that for this to come into effect it needs to be approved by every single EU member state. It is rumoured that Belgium, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, Slovakia and Romania are opposed to this.

  6. Re:Fuck. by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Indeed. Many of us will be dead before the works our parents enjoyed before our conception enter the public domain.

    It seems the media industry has much stronger political influence than the people. Something has gone very, very wrong with copyright law. The value society now takes from offering artists the protection of copyright is now extraordinarily questionable.

    If these industry groups were so concerned with the future of their artists they shouldn't be calling for 70-year long copyright terms, they should be offering artists a pension.

  7. Re:Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. 5 years by sanosuke001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Copyright and Patents should be MAX of 5 years. They are supposed to give the author a limited monopoly in order to facilitate future works/inventions. It is to the point of absurdity and, frankly, is disgusting.

    --
    -SaNo
  9. Re:Insightful? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    So some moron can make a completely idiotic post and just add "Go ahead burn my karma" and that suddenly makes it insightful?

    Not only that, his copyright on his post won't expire until 70 years after he finally dies.

  10. Re:Fuck. by Ahnteis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How on earth would extending the copyright help those artists? How would it promote culture for the common good?

    If they aren't recognized until after they're dead -- they're still dead and penniless.

  11. Re:Why is copyright bad? by mrbcs · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Copyright was so that people had protection to make a living performing their stuff. This bullshit now a days is so some asshole executive, who has screwed your mother out of her copyright, can make money off your mother forever.

    How the hell did we ever let copyrights become transferable?

    You wanna stop all this shit? Return all copyrights the the actual owners. The music industry would be destroyed overnight and this bullshit would end with it.

    --
    I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  12. The Biggest Pirates of Them All by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The IPI and other industry groups like to talk about the billions lost to piracy on the internet. But what they've done here dwarfs that. When you copy a song in violation of copyright you "steal" it once from one person or one company for a few years or however long goes by until you delete it or lose the disk its saved on.

    But what has happened here is that the industry groups have stolen every single song written or recorded in the last 70 years from every single citizen of the EU for a duration of at least 20 whole years. The scale of their theft is many orders of magnitude greater than the worst case scenario for "internet piracy."

    As far as I'm concerned, any rights owner that supports or benefits from any copyright term extension legislation has zero standing to complain about piracy. They broke the social contract that was in place when they created the music. Just because they have co-opted our so-called representatives to put a rubber-stamp of legality on their contract violation doesn't give them the moral high-ground in the conflict. They want new terms? Well, the only terms they deserve are a termination of their copyrights, termination with extreme prejudice.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  13. Re:Insightful? by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 5, Funny

    (...) with specific regard to industry charlatans who claim to represent the wishes of the people to be frogs.

    I'm French, you insensitive Claude!

    --
    "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
  14. Re:Fuck. by Maelwryth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Copyright has served its term. These laws are going to be passed in every country that matters ,in one way or another, just like all those other laws we didn't like were passed. Listening to music from the mass media organisations is becoming immoral. What are we supporting by enjoying their music? We are supporting the subservience of art to money. Nothing more, nothing less. Black Sabbath is my favorite band. I first heard them after sneaking into my brothers bedroom and listening to his records. I thinK (due to burglary and media changes) I have bought the entire catalog of Black Sabbath several times. Well, fuck them. There is only one way to really say this.
    cd Music/
    mv Jamendo ~
    cd ..
    rm -rf Music/*
    mv Jamendo/ Music/
    Join Jamendo folks. Search, find, advertise, and promote the musicians on there. Any musician from the labels is either clueless or trying to fuck you over. That the bands that I grew up with, supported, lived with, showed me beauty, tears and life can support this situation guts me. Spineless little fucks they have become. Delete your music folks, delete your movies. If you see or hear something you like from them then email them asking for their album/movie/whatever under creative commons. Our failure to do this with lead to the death of our culture and the emotional death of ourselves. Subsumed in the search for more and more money.

    If the RIAA and it's members want my remorse. It can turn it's body to a corpse.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  15. Potatoes and patents by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    * Why is it that an engineer or scientist will only be granted a 20 year protection of his or her idea after spending piles of money and maybe 5 to 10 years working on an idea, while a guy with a guitar gets a monopoly for life?

    * If I buy an original potatoe at a store and I reproduce it and share copies with my friends, why isn't that called theft? Making that initial potatoe available can potentially cost the store thousands in lost potatoe sales.

    (... sampled from the swedish debate)

    --
    She made the willows dance
  16. Re:Fuck. by SlashWombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real problem is that copyright is not an election issue. While most of slashdot readers are convinced that extension of copyright is evil, none are going to make it a big enough issue to force governments to back down.

    Personally, I would prefer copyright was similar to patent rights. 17..20 years should be sufficient time for the Autists to be fully compensated.