Alias Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7244928.stm Surely they're taking the piss? They want us to protect their copyright for 95 years now, instead of 50 (seems long enough anyhow). Can you imagine getting paid for the rest of your life for the job you did in your 20s? The European Union's internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy said that "copyright protection for Europe's performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances". Mr Daltrey said thousands of artists had "no pensions and rely on royalties". How about they work (be it performing or whatever else) like the rest of us, who don't have 95 year pension plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Surely they're taking the piss? They want us to protect their copyright for 95 years now, instead of 50 (seems long enough anyhow). Can you imagine getting paid for the rest of your life for the job you did in your 20s? I think its fair. Given the commercial world we live in why should it be fair for a company to nick a song you wrote and use it in an advertising campaign and get it totally free of charge? Its just increasing their profits at your expense. This is more relevant now with download music - why should a company charge for a consumer to download a track that they are getting free because copyright expired? It won't make downloads any cheaper - it just means that the download company makes more money. I can think of no other industry were the aquisition costs of your product is potentially Zero. Its also about control. Once you lose copyright your work could be used to support some causes that you have strong objections to and you'd have no say in the matter. If I was someone like Paul McCartney I'd feel good dying in the knowledge that my music could not be used to sell haemeroid cream, cars, or loans etc without the explicit agreement of my executors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think its fair. Given the commercial world we live in why should it be fair for a company to nick a song you wrote and use it in an advertising campaign and get it totally free of charge? Its just increasing their profits at your expense. This is more relevant now with download music - why should a company charge for a consumer to download a track that they are getting free because copyright expired? It won't make downloads any cheaper - it just means that the download company makes more money. I can think of no other industry were the aquisition costs of your product is potentially Zero. Its also about control. Once you lose copyright your work could be used to support some causes that you have strong objections to and you'd have no say in the matter. If I was someone like Paul McCartney I'd feel good dying in the knowledge that my music could not be used to sell haemeroid cream, cars, or loans etc without the explicit agreement of my executors. You're missing the point. Copyright grants a monopoly, any company could release that song after it's expired. Same with books, Shakespeare's works don't cost a bomb, nor do the sheets for Bach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 You're missing the point. Copyright grants a monopoly, any company could release that song after it's expired. Same with books, Shakespeare's works don't cost a bomb, nor do the sheets for Bach. I'm sorry but I think that you're missing the bigger point. Yes you're right in that copyright does create a monopoly - but download and digital formats have changed the music industry for the worst and its not going to change back. I won't buy download music myself because I think its a scam charging for a track you can only store and re-use in one way (when we used to buy CD's and tapes you could lend them to a mate - that's apparently now a breach of copyright), BUT if I was an artist and there was a chance that places like itunes would be making money out of distributing my work for bugger all then I'd decide that this is not right either. Nothing is free sadly - not even music. Its not the artists though its the record companies that are the biggest rip off merchants, and I think that extending copyright at least gives the artist a chance to try to control what happens. Your now getting kids being sued by companies for free downloads of "their" copyrighted music (which totally stinks by the way) - I doubt the artists mind that a few kids access their music for free as their music keeps them in the public eye and builds their brand. Its the record companies that are sueing kids for thousands of pounds for having a few tracks they have not paid for. All the artists are attempting to do, I guess, is secure their position in the new media world because they know that if they don't make money out of the copyright somebody else will. Most bands these days make more out of touring and flogging t-shirts than they do from selling music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 (when we used to buy CD's and tapes you could lend them to a mate - that's apparently now a breach of copyright) It always was. You can't be that old a Manx fella, if you don't remember this - on LP inner sleeves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurricanII Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 when we used to buy CD's and tapes you could lend them to a mate All the CDs I bought had a 'not for lending or hiring' condition printed on the CD and/or sleeve.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 think its fair. Given the commercial world we live in why should it be fair for a company to nick a song you wrote and use it in an advertising campaign and get it totally free of charge? I think you may need to re-read that piece. The writer still retains copyright (unless they sell it) for their lifetime + 70 years. It's only the person that performs the track who will benefit. There is a good reason for Sir Cliff campaigning as in 5 years time he will stop getting paid for singing on summer holiday (recorded 1963) but the writer (Bruce Welch & Brian Bennett) will still continue to get paid. Sir Cliff will however still get royalties for Bachelor Boy which he co-wrote (source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057541/soundtrack) I stand to be corrected but the publishing deal for Lennon and Mcartney involved them giving up the rights to a lot of their songs - which is how Michael Jackson owned a few of them - so Sir Paul can't complain if a bog brush was singing something he penned. Also a performer could release a version of just about any track without the writers permission. I doubt Sid Vicious went and got permission for "My Way" (although the label might have) as it is in the writers best interest to get as many versions of their music out into the world. Bottom line - "Hope I die before I get old" would have prevented this ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Also a performer could release a version of just about any track without the writers permission. I doubt Sid Vicious went and got permission for "My Way" (although the label might have) as it is in the writers best interest to get as many versions of their music out into the world. Isn't there something about having to get permission if you substantially change the song. I seem to recall Noel Gallagher refusing the Smurfs permission to cover an Oasis song on those grounds. Presumably, he felt "Smurfersonic" "Smurf Forever", "Smurf With It" and "Champaigne Smurfernova" fundimently changed the nature of his art. Or because he's a humourless git. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I did read that Weird Al asks for permission before releasing a song - and it was refused by Sir Paul for Chicken Pot Pie (live and let die) for sensible reasons but that he will still do the tracks live. And if you've heard polka party (etc) you have to wonder how he got permission.... Thinking back to the "Blues Brothers" and the excellent "making of it" special feature on the DVD it does refer to them having to obtain permission to re-record tracks so you could well be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I think 50 years is perfectly reasonable for writer and performer - but once a piece becomes 'copyright expired' NOBODY should be allowed to profit from it, bar, say, a modest mechanical charge for hosting/distributing it. I think Declan's right about the 'substantially change'. AFAIK anyone can buy the sheet music to anything and release a new recording - provided the rights holders are credited and registered for royalties. I know you can also assign rights for a specified period - years ago I co-wrote a jingle for a Liverpool car dealership, which they hammered to death on radio and TV. Once it 'expired' they had someone else do a new one but didn't like it, so I was able to charge again for a further period on the 'old' music. Bloody good tune actually...maybe I should resurrect it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 If I was someone like Paul McCartney I'd feel good dying in the knowledge that my music could not be used to sell haemeroid cream, cars, or prosthetic limbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.