Results 1 to 18 of 18
-
27th Nov 2006, 11:37 AM #1
Musical Copyright "unlikely to be extended"
It looks as if Sir Cliff's efforts to be a British Sonny Bono have failed as the recommendation of a think tank is to keep musical recordings in copyright for 50 years.
Cliff wanted the copyright extended to 95 years - meaning singers and bands (and their estates) would get royalties for almost twice as long as the current law. Is this fair enough?
Or is 50 years quite long enough to get paid for a few hours work in a recording studio? Is it simply greed on behalf of musicians who have made fortunes off their old recordings and don't want to give up this easy income stream? Surely any argument that less well off musicians rely on this income is nonsense as they would know what the law is and if their financial planning relied upon the law being changed to keep the money coming in then they are rather foolish.
Is it inevitable that this will change sooner or later? With the Beatles hitting the 50 year mark from 2013 isn't it likely their influence will sway the government into protecting a national treasure?
Or should the government stand firm and refuse to change the law of the land for the benefit of a few aging millionaires who were happy with the rules as long as they were in their favour but who are now crying because they stand to lose out?Dennis, Francois, Melba and Smasher are competing to see who can wine and dine Lola Whitecastle and win the contract to write her memoirs. Can Dennis learn how to be charming? Can Francois concentrate on anything else when food is on the table? Will Smasher keep his temper under control?
If only the 28th century didn't keep popping up to get in Dennis's way...
#dammitbrent
The eleventh annual Brenty Four serial is another Planet Skaro exclusive. A new episode each day until Christmas in the Brenty Four-um.
-
27th Nov 2006, 1:09 PM #2
If they add 45 years onto the licensing laws, loads of things that were out of copyright would suddenly come INTO copyright. Surely that would lead to madness in the courts?
Pity. I have no understanding of the word. It is not registered in my vocabulary bank. EXTERMINATE!
-
27th Nov 2006, 1:16 PM #3
unless they only made it applicable to material that's still under copyright?
As copyright NOT being extended, I do think that it's a bad thing! Particularly in the 21st Century, where the artist being alive 50 years after material was recorded is actually more likely, they can no longer benefit from their own material. In addition, they could have live through load of really poor cover versions!
Ant x
Watchers in the Fourth Dimension: A Doctor Who Podcast
Three Americans and a Brit attempt to watch their way through the entirety of Doctor Who
----
Latest Episode: The WOTAN Clan, discussing The War Machines
Available on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and Podbean
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @watchers4d
-
27th Nov 2006, 1:47 PM #4
I don't agree with the extension to 95 years, but I do think that you should have copyright on your works for life. It's not just millionaires who would benefit, but all the smaller artists - perhaps who only had a couple of hits back in the fifties and sixties. It seems wrong to deny them the small amounts of money they receive in royalties. I'd say fifty years or life, whichever's longer.
It's not fair to equate money earned from a recording to money earned in a normal job. If I do two hours' work, I get two hours' wages. If I make a record in two hours, then I might get nothing. Or lots. Or some. It's not a straightforward equation.
On a side note, though, if the copyright is held by a corporation, then it should be fifty years flat and any attempt to extend it is wrong. Innovate, corporate suits!The Doctor's almost as clever as I am!
-
27th Nov 2006, 5:38 PM #5
50 years sounds about right for me. How much of the yearn to increase it to 95 years is also a vanity that they don't want anyone else singing 'their' songs?
-
27th Nov 2006, 6:25 PM #6
You have no control as an artist over who covers your songs. You have no control as a writer over who sings your songs, so long as you get mechanical royalties. (via the PRS in the UK)
If you want to release it on an album, then you need to get clearance from the publisher, but that's often not the same as the artist (and this isn't true in the US, where you can get a compulsory licence for most things).The Doctor's almost as clever as I am!
-
28th Nov 2006, 6:52 PM #7
Maybe I'm just mean-spirited, but I think that getting royalties for work for 50 years is pretty good going - asking for it to be extended seems to be really pushing your luck in my opinion.
-
28th Nov 2006, 7:07 PM #8Wayne Guest
-
28th Nov 2006, 7:21 PM #9
On the other hand, I'd be well pissed off if a song I wrote and sang could be released by anybody, with them taking all the profits!
It's OK for Cliff who's had many hits since the 50s but what about one hit wonders eg. Procul Harem? It's possible their entire income relates to royalties from that one song!
-
28th Nov 2006, 7:24 PM #10Pip Madeley Guest
-
28th Nov 2006, 7:26 PM #11Procul Harem? It's possible their entire income relates to royalties from that one song!
-
28th Nov 2006, 7:41 PM #12Wayne Guest
Tough! If they're fool enough to sit around for 50yrs expecting to live off that, then that's their fault! They should've done something else!
Besides, they've got about another 10yrs to go. I think 50yrs is long enough.
Anyway, notice the ones kicking up the most fuss, are the ones with the most dosh. It's always the same!Last edited by Wayne; 28th Nov 2006 at 7:42 PM.
-
28th Nov 2006, 7:43 PM #13Tough! If they're fool enough to sit around for 50yrs expecting to live off that, then that's their fault! They should've done something else!
-
29th Nov 2006, 9:28 AM #14
-
29th Nov 2006, 9:39 AM #15
And the lawyers make far more money from the larger cases too. I wonder how much of it is the lawyers pushing these issues for their own sakes?
Pity. I have no understanding of the word. It is not registered in my vocabulary bank. EXTERMINATE!
-
29th Nov 2006, 7:50 PM #16
I always shake my head when people talk about the greed of artists or athletes, when they ignore the wealth of team owners or music industry execs and owners. Like they don't make 10 times as much. If the artists and athletes don't get the money their work generates, who does? The team and industry owners. And what did they do to earn it?
I say if someone creates something, it should be their intellectual property for life. I don't agree with extending the ownership to heirs though.Last edited by Jeff; 29th Nov 2006 at 7:56 PM.
-
29th Nov 2006, 8:15 PM #17
It's not whether or not the artist still gets money from something they made for life... it's if you think it's fair that someone else deserves to profit from that property while the person that created it is still living. If someone wrote a song 60 years ago, you might not think they deserve paying for it today, but the fact is that song can be re-sold and can generate money - which has to go somewhere. Should it go to the original artist, or to someone who had nothing to do with it?
Si.
-
29th Nov 2006, 11:57 PM #18Wayne Guest
Similar Threads
-
Tom Baker -"id do new series cameo "if they ask me nicely"
By Larry in forum Adventures In Time and SpaceReplies: 12Last Post: 31st Mar 2008, 7:13 PM -
Guilty musical pleasures! (The "Hey there Georgy girl!!!" thread)
By Carol Baynes in forum MusicReplies: 19Last Post: 11th Mar 2007, 11:22 PM
PSAudios 6.1. Bless You Doctor Who
[/URL] (Click for large version) Doctor Who A thrilling two-part adventure starring Brendan Jones & Paul Monk & Paul Monk Bless You,...
23rd Nov 2020, 3:02 PM