Slashdot Mirror
The Great Canadian Copyright Giveaway: Copyright Extension For Sound Recordings
An anonymous reader writes: Despite no study, no public demands, and the potential cost to the public of millions of dollars, the Canadian government announced yesterday that it will extend the term of copyright for sound recordings and performances from 50 to 70 years. The music industry did not raise term extension as
a key concern during either the 2012 copyright reform bill or the 2014 Canadian Heritage committee study on the industry. For Canadians, the extension could cost millions of dollars as works that were scheduled to come into the public domain will now
remain locked down for decades.
the Canadian governments are puppets to their corporate overlords and have historically supported incumbent monopolies over competition and innovation.
Famous Copyright Infringement Plagiarism cases in Music
Music Lawsuits: Blurred Lines Thoughts
HTH. HAND.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So, are you ready to demonstrate, how copyrights have sniffled the development of Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, or Rap, for example?
If not, then your "concerns" about sniffling are nothing but attempts to spread FUD.
It has traditionally been allowed. All of those genres have grown up with being allowed to sample, make covers, and especially make music that sounds like other artists (what do you think genres are in the first place?)
Recently it was made illegal to make music that sounds like other artists: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
The best thing that can be said about Blurred Lines is that the Weird Al parody of it was fantastic.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Terrestrial radio is simply exempt from the public performance restrictions of copyright law. There's no licensing, period.
That's some of the strongest evidence that copyright, particularly as it is now, is unnecessary. The music industry would _love_ to be able to stop unlicensed terrestrial radio broadcasts, even though there are mountains of undisputed economic data showing that the industry as a whole would be _worse_ off if radio stations were required to license.
Why? It's a kind of collective action problem. Every company in the music industry thinks that, left to their own devices, they would do better if they could control specifically what was and was not played over the radio. But if _every_ company were able to do that, then the net result is a reduction in total economic wealth, and even the economic wealth of the music industry in particular.