EU votes to extend music copyright to 70 years(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
EU votes to extend music copyright to 70 years
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14829373
14 comments
Why? To better incentivize people to make music in the 1940s and 50s?
If I wrote a book in 1961 (hypothetically, that would have been precocious even for my parents), it would be in copyright for 75 years after my death.
If I recorded a song in 1961, that recording would go out of copyright this year under the previous regime.
The rights and wrongs of lengthy copyright protection are a separate issue, but the differential treatment of different artistic forms is something I feel should be addressed. This is a step towards equalisation (not full equalisation but a lot less controversial and so easier to enact), and for that I'm thankful.
If I recorded a song in 1961, that recording would go out of copyright this year under the previous regime.
The rights and wrongs of lengthy copyright protection are a separate issue, but the differential treatment of different artistic forms is something I feel should be addressed. This is a step towards equalisation (not full equalisation but a lot less controversial and so easier to enact), and for that I'm thankful.
Oddly enough, I've never yet seen anyone making the "harmonization" argument argue that the lengthier term should be reduced, rather than arguing that the shorter term should be lengthened. Why is that?
Nor is it clear that different countries and different media should have the same rules in the first place.
Nor is it clear that different countries and different media should have the same rules in the first place.
Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Authors get to, musicians don't, this gets especially tricky when you get artists like (hate to mention him) Justin Bieber who have legitimate recording and writing credits in his early teens. Given the sort of healthcare accessible to the extremely wealthy, it's doubtful that this kid wont outlive copyright even at 70 years from his 2009 copyrights.
The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you.
Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd.
Then you have organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who act on behalf of mega-corps that have conglomerated thousands of peoples work under themselves and keeps those artists trapped with huge debts, lengthy record contracts, etc. The RIAA does to musicians what Monsanto does to farmers. They're elephants throwing their weight around in a pen full of guinea pigs, and its hard to see these corporations as anything but evil and greedy. Basically because all they are are evil and greedy.
Then you have the legislators who all have a lot of green mysteriously slipped into their pockets, and they claim to be pro-business and support copyright because it helps the little guy. Whilst the little guy is generally unable to be helped because they're firmly squashed beneath an elephants feet.
The problem gets really complex when an authors children starts making legitimate derivative works, because then the series as a whole needs to be kept in copyright to enforce the derivative works clause. So who decides what would be a legitimate derivative work to extend copyright to the end of the child's life, and what isn't so the material has a chance to re-enter the market and not be killed off by the Estates greed.
Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity and discourage people trying to make Hollywood sales on everything they make.
The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you.
Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd.
Then you have organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who act on behalf of mega-corps that have conglomerated thousands of peoples work under themselves and keeps those artists trapped with huge debts, lengthy record contracts, etc. The RIAA does to musicians what Monsanto does to farmers. They're elephants throwing their weight around in a pen full of guinea pigs, and its hard to see these corporations as anything but evil and greedy. Basically because all they are are evil and greedy.
Then you have the legislators who all have a lot of green mysteriously slipped into their pockets, and they claim to be pro-business and support copyright because it helps the little guy. Whilst the little guy is generally unable to be helped because they're firmly squashed beneath an elephants feet.
The problem gets really complex when an authors children starts making legitimate derivative works, because then the series as a whole needs to be kept in copyright to enforce the derivative works clause. So who decides what would be a legitimate derivative work to extend copyright to the end of the child's life, and what isn't so the material has a chance to re-enter the market and not be killed off by the Estates greed.
Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity and discourage people trying to make Hollywood sales on everything they make.
> Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life.
Why would it be? Copyright was initially supposed to bring betterment to society, not even more wealth to successful artists. How does extending performer rights by 20 years improve society as a whole?
> Authors get to, musicians don't
Compositors already did. They're musicians. Performers did not.
> The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value.
No, no it would not.
> Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot.
That's a highway to even worse abuse than the current system (which in the fullness of time will already reach infinite copyright duration).
> As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity.
How? A new release with half a paragraph changed would already be a derivative. Have you even seen how many times Lucas has "remastered" star wars?
Why would it be? Copyright was initially supposed to bring betterment to society, not even more wealth to successful artists. How does extending performer rights by 20 years improve society as a whole?
> Authors get to, musicians don't
Compositors already did. They're musicians. Performers did not.
> The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value.
No, no it would not.
> Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot.
That's a highway to even worse abuse than the current system (which in the fullness of time will already reach infinite copyright duration).
> As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity.
How? A new release with half a paragraph changed would already be a derivative. Have you even seen how many times Lucas has "remastered" star wars?
>Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd.
That isn't at all what copyright is like. You don't own the song; you own the copyright on it, meaning that the government agrees to stop people from producing their own copies of the song without your permission. And when copyright expires, you aren't forced to give up your song — you can still have it to enjoy for as long as you like, but you aren't allowed to stop other people from making others like it anymore.
Copyright is protection from competition. If copyright on companies existed, there would only be one bakery in the world because whoever first made a bakery would own the copyright on bakery companies. This is obviously absurd when applied to companies, which is why it isn't. At a certain point, though, it also becomes absurd when applied to artistic works, because the whole point of giving this protection to artistic works is to enrich our culture, not shove our culture into IP silos in perpetuity.
That isn't at all what copyright is like. You don't own the song; you own the copyright on it, meaning that the government agrees to stop people from producing their own copies of the song without your permission. And when copyright expires, you aren't forced to give up your song — you can still have it to enjoy for as long as you like, but you aren't allowed to stop other people from making others like it anymore.
Copyright is protection from competition. If copyright on companies existed, there would only be one bakery in the world because whoever first made a bakery would own the copyright on bakery companies. This is obviously absurd when applied to companies, which is why it isn't. At a certain point, though, it also becomes absurd when applied to artistic works, because the whole point of giving this protection to artistic works is to enrich our culture, not shove our culture into IP silos in perpetuity.
What about drug companies. In just a few years Viagra is entering the public domain and that's more valuable (and cost more to create) than every single song produced in 1961 and 2010. The reality is Artists get a ridiculously long period of time to extract value from their work and we would probably be better off if copywrite lasted 20 years than what it's been extended to for the same reasons that patents are so short.
>The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you. //
This is a false analogy. It is not the company that would be taken but the right to copy it's products that were produced, and sold X years ago. Put another way, we don't allow artists only X years to produce work and then acquire them as vassals of the state. Moreover the value of works for an artist when that work falls out of copyright is not normally zero unless it was approximately zero at the start; an artist can still perform the work and get paid particularly if that work was deemed by society to be of cultural value.
Why is this fair? Why would a copyright term of 20 years max be fair? Because it's a deal. The state provides monopoly protection in exchange for release into the public domain after the stated period. If you don't want to take the deal then you can keep your works private.
This is a false analogy. It is not the company that would be taken but the right to copy it's products that were produced, and sold X years ago. Put another way, we don't allow artists only X years to produce work and then acquire them as vassals of the state. Moreover the value of works for an artist when that work falls out of copyright is not normally zero unless it was approximately zero at the start; an artist can still perform the work and get paid particularly if that work was deemed by society to be of cultural value.
Why is this fair? Why would a copyright term of 20 years max be fair? Because it's a deal. The state provides monopoly protection in exchange for release into the public domain after the stated period. If you don't want to take the deal then you can keep your works private.
> but the right to copy it's products that were produced, and sold X years ago.
No, it would be the products sold today. Copyright doesn't expire once a work stops being sold. The reason a change has been made is because the works are still being sold in a large enough volume that people stand to loose enough money to lobby government to protect.
Perhaps not taking your company, but when they're taking your product and profitability, they're certainly taking away your production lines. Who isn't going to buy the entire discography of the Rolling Stones for $10 when the band is still charging a fortune per album.
No, it would be the products sold today. Copyright doesn't expire once a work stops being sold. The reason a change has been made is because the works are still being sold in a large enough volume that people stand to loose enough money to lobby government to protect.
Perhaps not taking your company, but when they're taking your product and profitability, they're certainly taking away your production lines. Who isn't going to buy the entire discography of the Rolling Stones for $10 when the band is still charging a fortune per album.
You know, society doesn't function in such a way that things are wrong merely because they prevent you from realizing profits you think you might be able to realize in some hypothetical universe. There are plenty of ways things could be changed in such a way that individual would make more money. However, the guiding principle behind copyright (at least according to the US constitution) is to "further the progress of science and the useful arts", not for individuals to make money, and I find it extremely doubtful that current copyright terms were just too short for people to bother creating stuff...
Hear, hear!
Part of the copyright deal is that we, the people, provide a framework of legal protections on the understanding that works are released in to the public domain. As with patents, copyright from the public perspective is about encouraging innovation and creation but also about ultimately freeing ideas and creations for the public use.
It is a vast shame that US corporate profit is now apparently dictating statute in Europe to the detriment of the ordinary people of Europe.
Part of the copyright deal is that we, the people, provide a framework of legal protections on the understanding that works are released in to the public domain. As with patents, copyright from the public perspective is about encouraging innovation and creation but also about ultimately freeing ideas and creations for the public use.
It is a vast shame that US corporate profit is now apparently dictating statute in Europe to the detriment of the ordinary people of Europe.
Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life.
Sorry, but no, it isn't. You might think that it should be their right, but nowhere is this spelled out as a fundamental human right and there are plenty of people who think otherwise.
Sorry, but no, it isn't. You might think that it should be their right, but nowhere is this spelled out as a fundamental human right and there are plenty of people who think otherwise.
It's not fair to compare companies and copyright. I can make a company that provides the same service as your company or a bit of your company or as your company and two others combined, and not violate anything -- that's (mostly) celebrated as competition and innovation.
Also, your proposed 20 years copyright + 20 years extensions for derivatives would make it trivial to extend copyright indefinitely by producing a trivial derivative at 19 years. It could even be automated. I think it would be better to fix the derivative works clause so such a work is copyrighted on its own.
Also, your proposed 20 years copyright + 20 years extensions for derivatives would make it trivial to extend copyright indefinitely by producing a trivial derivative at 19 years. It could even be automated. I think it would be better to fix the derivative works clause so such a work is copyrighted on its own.
As I already said, and as multiple people seem incapable of reading. It would hinge on being able to determine what a legitimate derivative is.
Also, you don't seem to have a clue what a derivative is. A derivative work is a whole new work based on the original copyright and that original material being necessary for the derivative work. Sequels/prequels/whatever are derivatives, an edited edition is not. I don't get what's so hard for people to grasp about that.
The copyright could be structured so that the copyright does lapse, but in the existence of derivative works the derivative copyright is extended, giving protection from someone writing an unauthorized sequel as long as the new material is in copyright.
Also, you don't seem to have a clue what a derivative is. A derivative work is a whole new work based on the original copyright and that original material being necessary for the derivative work. Sequels/prequels/whatever are derivatives, an edited edition is not. I don't get what's so hard for people to grasp about that.
The copyright could be structured so that the copyright does lapse, but in the existence of derivative works the derivative copyright is extended, giving protection from someone writing an unauthorized sequel as long as the new material is in copyright.
Wow, thanks for that amazingly educational response. I had no idea I was such an idiot.
First, according to the Wikipedia entry on derivative work, "[...]The Mona Lisa With a Moustache. Often used by law professors to illustrate legal concept of derivative work." seems to suggest that producing a derivative work is indeed trivial. Copyright doesn't care if anyone would actually want to consume the work.
Also, why is it that protecting derivative works would automatically mean that the original needs protection as well? While you're preparing the 21st edition of your annual comic series, I make one that is a derivative of your first edition (now out of copyright). Sure, it's inconvenient for you, but I can't pretend to be "the real thing" as your trademark is certainly still covered. The fan-fiction universe seems to suggest such a "parallel" universe can exist without anyone mistaking one for the other.
First, according to the Wikipedia entry on derivative work, "[...]The Mona Lisa With a Moustache. Often used by law professors to illustrate legal concept of derivative work." seems to suggest that producing a derivative work is indeed trivial. Copyright doesn't care if anyone would actually want to consume the work.
Also, why is it that protecting derivative works would automatically mean that the original needs protection as well? While you're preparing the 21st edition of your annual comic series, I make one that is a derivative of your first edition (now out of copyright). Sure, it's inconvenient for you, but I can't pretend to be "the real thing" as your trademark is certainly still covered. The fan-fiction universe seems to suggest such a "parallel" universe can exist without anyone mistaking one for the other.
The argument of The Mona Lisa With a Moustache is actually a rather thinly stretched argument on the concept of derivative work. In fact it illustrates the exemption to copyright in that it falls under parody in fair-use. You could put a moustache on FHM's sexiest woman and be exempt from any copyright and have created a derivative work. So I fail to see how the derivative work clauses in copyright is harming anything when your example of a trivial derivative work actually trumps the evil you're claiming.
> Sure, it's inconvenient for you, but I can't pretend to be "the real thing" as your trademark is certainly still covered.Sure, it's inconvenient for you, but I can't pretend to be "the real thing" as your trademark is certainly still covered.
Actually yes you can, it's virtually impossible to trademark a name and it would be easy to fool untold thousands by publishing an eighth Harry Potter and simply leave out the authors name. This then lands the pressure on book sellers to vet the works they sell to ensure a work is a legitimate sequel so as not to damage their own profits by selling inferior knockoffs.
> The fan-fiction universe seems to suggest such a "parallel" universe can exist without anyone mistaking one for the other.
Because a crudely written story on some fanfic board is really going to confuse consumers in a bookstore or on Amazon. Seriously, it's absurd claiming people don't mistake the two when you'll never see the two together in the first place. You'll never see fanfic anywhere but backwater sites because when people start making money off of it, the person will be screwed beyond belief. People get raped by the RIAA for allegedly costing them money; imagine what lawyers can do when they can prove you cost them money by having a record of your sales.
> Sure, it's inconvenient for you, but I can't pretend to be "the real thing" as your trademark is certainly still covered.Sure, it's inconvenient for you, but I can't pretend to be "the real thing" as your trademark is certainly still covered.
Actually yes you can, it's virtually impossible to trademark a name and it would be easy to fool untold thousands by publishing an eighth Harry Potter and simply leave out the authors name. This then lands the pressure on book sellers to vet the works they sell to ensure a work is a legitimate sequel so as not to damage their own profits by selling inferior knockoffs.
> The fan-fiction universe seems to suggest such a "parallel" universe can exist without anyone mistaking one for the other.
Because a crudely written story on some fanfic board is really going to confuse consumers in a bookstore or on Amazon. Seriously, it's absurd claiming people don't mistake the two when you'll never see the two together in the first place. You'll never see fanfic anywhere but backwater sites because when people start making money off of it, the person will be screwed beyond belief. People get raped by the RIAA for allegedly costing them money; imagine what lawyers can do when they can prove you cost them money by having a record of your sales.
I strongly disagree that copyright terms for different categories of works should be equal, whether out of a sense of "fairness" or for any other reason. The copyright term should be just long enough to encourage production, yet short enough to match the pace of change in the relevant industry.
Personally, I'd give software the shortest copyright terms, music slightly longer, and literary works slightly longer than that, with no copyright term ever longer than 28 years.
As an aside, increasing lifespans should give us more time to enjoy the world and push it forward. Instead, they're used as a justification to slow the world down with things like longer copyright terms for long-lived authors.
Personally, I'd give software the shortest copyright terms, music slightly longer, and literary works slightly longer than that, with no copyright term ever longer than 28 years.
As an aside, increasing lifespans should give us more time to enjoy the world and push it forward. Instead, they're used as a justification to slow the world down with things like longer copyright terms for long-lived authors.
Sounds good... the copyright on books should be reduced to that of recordings, I agree. Oh wait, they did they opposite? Why that I wonder?
A step towards sanity would be to bring other forms of copyright more in line with the 50 years for music.
What good does it do a song you wrote in 1960 to be copyrighted in 2060?
What good does it do a song you wrote in 1960 to be copyrighted in 2060?
It also means You can trust your music will be your own, for most of your life.
You think people who start their own rock band do it for the pension benefits? Also do you really think this is about a handful of rock groups that would benefit from this? It's all about the labels, period. They stand to gain a lot more from this than a bunch of 70 year old artists, who by the way, are still gaining from their more "recent" 50 year old music.
"Your music" is just a remix of sounds and words from earlier artists. Extending copyright like this stifles innovation and future creativity.
Please explain this nonsensical argument. How does the Rolling Stones holding the copyright to Paint It Black stifle someone else's innovation and creativity? Seriously. Innovation and creativity go with being original, and you're encouraging being derivative.
Look at Disney and don't tell me that a lack of copyright makes creativity. A lack of copyright just enables corporations to mass produce drivel from non-copyrighted works and cut out the talented people. Disney is barely a step away from just an algorithm that creates film scripts from Brothers Grimm stories.
Look at Disney and don't tell me that a lack of copyright makes creativity. A lack of copyright just enables corporations to mass produce drivel from non-copyrighted works and cut out the talented people. Disney is barely a step away from just an algorithm that creates film scripts from Brothers Grimm stories.
There's no need for retro-activity here. It necessarily does not give any incentive for the works for which it applies, while still costing society the same high price.
When copyright periods are described, they describe the amount of time after the author's death that the work remains copyrighted. Your music is your own while you live with no limitations; this is about your estate and your inheritors deriving profit from your work, not about you.
No, not in this case. Composers and authors enjoy protection past their death, but this law refers to music performers. These are only protected for 50 years from the date they are created.
Ah, you seem to be right:
http://www.openmusicarchive.org/faq.php
http://www.openmusicarchive.org/faq.php
This is important, as presumably you can't copy a recording with impunity if the musical composition is still under copyright (as with any songs written in the 1960s). If thats the case, it just means more people actually responsible for creating the recording get paid
If you write music, it will always be your music, even after the copyright has expired.
Copyright is about the government stopping other people from using a work without permission of the copyright holder, not about identifying whose work something is.
Copyright is about the government stopping other people from using a work without permission of the copyright holder, not about identifying whose work something is.
In that case force labels to revert 100% of the rights back to the original creators after 25 years. We will see how much those so called "artist rights lobbyist" work for that one.
It also means _you_ can trust your music rights will be your music label's own, for most of your life.
Then if _you_ care so much, why did _you_ sell out to _your_ music label?
There's other ways to handle the music labels than abolish copyright.
There's other ways to handle the music labels than abolish copyright.
An illustration of why some of the software industry wants to be more like the music industry and why the music industry doesn't want to be like the software industry.
Imagine if you were still making money off a program you wrote in 1960. Almost inconceivable in any mass market.
Imagine if you were still making money off a program you wrote in 1960. Almost inconceivable in any mass market.
Let alone that most people that made popular music 50 years ago are dead nowadays.
It's not the original artist who gets the money but some persons that didn't even work for it!!
They bought the license. Are business deals not work? Do you need proximity to the creation to profit from it?
You should, yes.
Can you make a convincing argument that copyright ought to be transferable in the first place? I'm not certain it shouldn't, but this thread has made me realize I've never heard a good reason for it.
Liquidity for creators, without which some wouldn't have the time and money needed to create and publicise their creation. Its analogous to being allowed to sell [in part or whole] the ownership of your startup before accruing any profit.
Still, those who provide liquidity for creators should not be able to profit from a work any longer than the original creator would have, given the same resources. In other words, copyright should expire after the same fixed amount of time, whether it's owned by a person, an estate, or a corporation.
How does restricting transfer of copyright affect this? Is it that hard to get around? An artist wouldn't be able to completely sell the 'rights' to his work but he could certainly work out an arrangement whereby some record label or studio or publisher, etc., agrees to distribute his work for him in exchange for a portion of the proceeds. The only difference is that after the deed is done, the artist still owns the work and can work out a similar arrangement with someone else, should he choose.
This isn't uncommon even now, actually, but especially with yet-unknown artists publishers will often push pretty hard against it, and usually get what they want. I think removing it as a possibility would be good for artists in most cases.
This isn't uncommon even now, actually, but especially with yet-unknown artists publishers will often push pretty hard against it, and usually get what they want. I think removing it as a possibility would be good for artists in most cases.
What would happen to music that is currently say 60 years old? That would have been copyright-free for 10 years and all of a sudden it is under copyright again?
Once the copyright has lapsed, it has lapsed. Unless they did something special beyond simply extending the period then there's no way to renew the copyright.
I'm not sure about this case, but that's not always been true everywhere, historically. In the UK, at least, when books were extended to life + 70 that was retroactive for books originally published there. It was not retroactive in the USA, however (and more sensibly, I would say - whatever your views on term extension).
This has affected me and my business in the past - see http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-availabl... (halfway down, "A Note on Copyright" has an explanation of this oddity).
This has affected me and my business in the past - see http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-availabl... (halfway down, "A Note on Copyright" has an explanation of this oddity).
That's actually quite the oddity. It seems to go against conventional wisdom (but then when has the British Government done anything wise lately?) and copyright law itself in that once copyright lapses it is supposed to be non-ownable from that point on.
The pension argument is lame, if a performer wants a pension they should do what everybody else does, save for it.
Yes, "people will still play my present music in 60 years" is not something I would recommend as your pension plan.
While it's not necessarily a solid plan, if your music attained popularity, it's not unreasonable to think it will be played regularly in sixty years.
Here in Denver (2M population in the larger metro area) there are at least:
- One AM swing/standards station (Benny Goodman etc) playing music from the thirties to the sixties.
- Two FM oldies stations, one of which is also AM, playing music from the fifties to the seventies.
- Two primarily classic rock FM stations and one progressive station that sits partly in their Venn diagram, playing music from the sixties to the eighties.
- A public FM station that plays folk/bluegrass/world, back to the thirties.
That's not to say that the retirement plan is any more solid than an NBA career, but the music itself, if it once had traction, will likely be played for a long time.
Here in Denver (2M population in the larger metro area) there are at least:
- One AM swing/standards station (Benny Goodman etc) playing music from the thirties to the sixties.
- Two FM oldies stations, one of which is also AM, playing music from the fifties to the seventies.
- Two primarily classic rock FM stations and one progressive station that sits partly in their Venn diagram, playing music from the sixties to the eighties.
- A public FM station that plays folk/bluegrass/world, back to the thirties.
That's not to say that the retirement plan is any more solid than an NBA career, but the music itself, if it once had traction, will likely be played for a long time.
I remember listening to a documentary which interviewed the second tier of jazz, swing, and big-band musicians from the 1940's and 1950's. Along came the 1960's and rock and pop and they were sore out of luck. The top tier could still scrap a living, but not the rest.
Isn't that narrowing down, to a few super-stars who stand the test of time, quite typical? There must be lots of rock musicians from the 1970's who I cannot now remember and will never bother to listen to.
Musicians need to put some of their current income into a pension plan. They cannot expect to get royalties when they are old, whatever the duration of copyright.
Isn't that narrowing down, to a few super-stars who stand the test of time, quite typical? There must be lots of rock musicians from the 1970's who I cannot now remember and will never bother to listen to.
Musicians need to put some of their current income into a pension plan. They cannot expect to get royalties when they are old, whatever the duration of copyright.
If you ever happen to find yourself wondering if copyrights are about to be extended again, just remember, The Beatles and Mickey Mouse will never be entering the public domain. Either of these events about to occur? Dude, you're getting an extension.
How long until patents never expire either?
We shouldn't confuse causation with correlation, but the slowing of "big" ideas is roughly correlated with the outer limit of the patent age. 1900 seems archaic, but 1960 still seems relevant (Minus those pesky, non-consumption-friendly social movements). Cars, telecommunications, miniskirts. It's like we're seeing our culture enthrone its mores in the way Americans know best: litigation, and the legal system. Our culture is slowing down in some sense, but in reality it's just becoming "legitimate" and stable.
For example: where's the big new music scene? It's not because there's no musical avenues left to investigate. It's because our culture is so laden with ideas, we're incapable of propagating new ones into the mainstream. Why not an exploration into pure acoustic tonality, a la Yoshida Brothers? Because our culture is not capable of accepting it. We've become static. Hell, the whole concept of a "hipster" was in thrifting old, expired cultures. The vogue was in retro. Bruce Sterling, eat your heart out.
So, to answer your question: if we don't see any major cultural revolutions? Soon, but genesis will always be around 1900-1960.
If we get cyborgs and AI? Never. It would be like trying to rehash ragtime. Eventually patents will melt away, and reform at the beginning of the new age.
Basically: patents are the cultural realization that old ideas are still valid and commercially viable today. I don't like that, but there it is.
For example: where's the big new music scene? It's not because there's no musical avenues left to investigate. It's because our culture is so laden with ideas, we're incapable of propagating new ones into the mainstream. Why not an exploration into pure acoustic tonality, a la Yoshida Brothers? Because our culture is not capable of accepting it. We've become static. Hell, the whole concept of a "hipster" was in thrifting old, expired cultures. The vogue was in retro. Bruce Sterling, eat your heart out.
So, to answer your question: if we don't see any major cultural revolutions? Soon, but genesis will always be around 1900-1960.
If we get cyborgs and AI? Never. It would be like trying to rehash ragtime. Eventually patents will melt away, and reform at the beginning of the new age.
Basically: patents are the cultural realization that old ideas are still valid and commercially viable today. I don't like that, but there it is.
What you describe is largely a Red and Blue ocean issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
I can't stop being amazed at how powerful those lobbies are.
The idea of free music is non-existent in the minds of most people. Pretty much all our musical "culture history" is those who were commercially successful (history of the winners). In Germany pretty much all you hear on the radio is music industry.
I think people would not even know how to handle it if eg the Beatles recordings would suddenly be free. They would probably still buy CDs in the stores.
I think people would not even know how to handle it if eg the Beatles recordings would suddenly be free. They would probably still buy CDs in the stores.
I fail to see how this holds any water at all, considering that music is free for a substantial number of people.
Sorry, I was being unclear. I meant music that is free and legal to download and share.
Just think about all the now 50-year old music that would become parts of mash-ups and remixes everywhere, creating a lot of new cool music. Now this just won't happen. :-(
Does the legal justification for copyright differ in the EU vs the USA? In the USA, the nominal basis is to give a creator a monopoly over reproduction for a time, to encourage that creator to make more.
That might have been true about the USA once upon a time, but ...
The [Copyright Term Extension] Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
I'm not sure that extending copyright from lifetime+50years to lifetime+70years was really aimed at encouraging creators to create more.
The [Copyright Term Extension] Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
I'm not sure that extending copyright from lifetime+50years to lifetime+70years was really aimed at encouraging creators to create more.
It has also been regularly extended every time Mickey Mouse was about to enter public domain, the realistic expectation is that copyright in the USA will never expire.
I actually googled for "Mickey Mouse protection act" to find the name of the legislation.
Steamboat Willy was released in 1928, so expect the next extension in around ten years time.
There have only been 3 Mickey Mouse cartoons in the last 56 years and the cynic in me suspects that they are only being made to boost their moral justification for continually extending the copyright on the character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mickey_Mouse_cartoons
Steamboat Willy was released in 1928, so expect the next extension in around ten years time.
There have only been 3 Mickey Mouse cartoons in the last 56 years and the cynic in me suspects that they are only being made to boost their moral justification for continually extending the copyright on the character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mickey_Mouse_cartoons
And maybe I was a touch too cynical. If she were here, my niece would be jumping about and down right now to remind me about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse_Clubhouse in which Mickey has had a starring role for years.
What is sad about this is a lot of things that were created in the early 1900s will now be lost forever since copies cannot be made and archiving the works on a different medium would infringe copyright. Trying to get the rights for those things is impossible since the owners are dead. So we are going to loose a lot of early music recordings, film and books from that period.
Whenever a revolution was successful in ancient China, the winner would burn the historical and cultural records of the loser, to prevent the old order from reorganizing and reviving. I see this as a slower version of that tactic, letting context and criticisms rot away, while your own carefully cultivated "history" becomes all that remains.
I recall some discussion of this in the copyright class I took in law school, and it was pretty interesting--hopefully I'll not misremember too much in what follows.
It had something to do with the differences between the philosophies of Locke and Hegel, and how the former had more influence over American political philosophy, and the later had more influence over European political philosophy.
Anyway, the net result is that in the US, the philosophical view of IP is tied to the idea that you should own the fruits of your labor, including mental labor. In Europe, the philosophical view is that the works of an author are an extension of the author's personality, and so you should have rights over them for the same reason you have rights over your mind.
This is why European copyright law has much stronger recognition for so called "moral" rights than does the US, such as rights of attribution, rights of artists to prevent defacements of their works, and so on.
It had something to do with the differences between the philosophies of Locke and Hegel, and how the former had more influence over American political philosophy, and the later had more influence over European political philosophy.
Anyway, the net result is that in the US, the philosophical view of IP is tied to the idea that you should own the fruits of your labor, including mental labor. In Europe, the philosophical view is that the works of an author are an extension of the author's personality, and so you should have rights over them for the same reason you have rights over your mind.
This is why European copyright law has much stronger recognition for so called "moral" rights than does the US, such as rights of attribution, rights of artists to prevent defacements of their works, and so on.
No, the EU just recognised that intellectual property should be respected.
Alas, unlike the USA, there is no offical reason why it should be protected.
Alas, unlike the USA, there is no offical reason why it should be protected.
How does this "respect" account for independent invention?
Many things (telegraph, telephone, Tee Vee, automobiles, Knuth-Morris-Pratt pattern matching) are invented nearly simultaneously by several inventors. If "intellectual property" is property, how can more than 1 person own it?
If you don't account for independent invention, your "respect" is fake, and doesn't take into account the labor of the independent inventor.
Many things (telegraph, telephone, Tee Vee, automobiles, Knuth-Morris-Pratt pattern matching) are invented nearly simultaneously by several inventors. If "intellectual property" is property, how can more than 1 person own it?
If you don't account for independent invention, your "respect" is fake, and doesn't take into account the labor of the independent inventor.
What music from the 1940es is such a great moneymaker today that copyright holders can't bear to lose distribution privileges? Rarely are even 2 year old tunes really big sellers.
From the 40s, I don't know, but that's not really the question. Before this vote, the limit was set at 50 years, which meant that all those bands from the 1960s, who are still making decent money, would start to lose income. Think the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, the Supremes, Bob Dylan.
Of course, I don't feel terribly much sympathy for them - they've all lived lives of privilege that I will probably never know, and I don't see why they should be able to continue making even more money from something they did half a century ago.
I wouldn't mind so much, except that in the music world, the idea of a derived work has received such a broad definition by the legal system. I mean, I don't think it unreasonable that the Beatles should continue to receive money for copies of their performance of Hey Jude, but why can't another artist do a cover without having to pay them, 50 years down the track? IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it!
Of course, I don't feel terribly much sympathy for them - they've all lived lives of privilege that I will probably never know, and I don't see why they should be able to continue making even more money from something they did half a century ago.
I wouldn't mind so much, except that in the music world, the idea of a derived work has received such a broad definition by the legal system. I mean, I don't think it unreasonable that the Beatles should continue to receive money for copies of their performance of Hey Jude, but why can't another artist do a cover without having to pay them, 50 years down the track? IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it!
I mean, I don't think it unreasonable that the Beatles should continue to receive money for copies of their performance of Hey Jude, but why can't another artist do a cover without having to pay them, 50 years down the track? IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it!
This extension only applies to their recordings (as performers). The songwriting copyright is already set at 70 years, so nothing is changing there.
This extension only applies to their recordings (as performers). The songwriting copyright is already set at 70 years, so nothing is changing there.
"IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it!" IP is supposed to benefit creators not plagiarists. Copying someone elses' work is not creative expression.
Tell that to Walt Disney -- last I checked, he built his fortune by "plagiarizing" out-of-copyright stories.
And what about all those movies based on Wells, Verne, Conan-Doyle, Christie, Austen?
One of the most successful songs ever, in economic terms, is "Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum: a blatant riff on two compositions by Bach.
The likes of Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton would have gone nowhere without the ability to ransack the humongous catalogue of blues classics -- if the original black musicians and composers had enjoyed modern copyright terms, you wouldn't have had any of that. Same for Bob Dylan and folk songs.
All art is derivative, originality is a myth.
All art is derivative, originality is a myth.
To quote Lawrence Lessig, "No one can do to the Disney Corporation what Walt Disney did to the Brothers Grimm."
It's important to note it isn't just Walt who raped the Brothers Grimm, but the entire corporation has the mentality of pillaging myth and legend like it's their 90 year old grandma's jewellery box and they need another hit of meth.
Pillaging? There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving a new voice to stories that have become part of our cultural consciousness. That's precisely how cultures evolve. We build upon the creations of those who went before us, adding our own unique touches and flourishes.
The only pillaging here is being done by politicians and lobbyists who are preventing new developments from being adapted and evolved. The creative contribution of Hendrix's recording of "All Along the Watchtower" is something many of us appreciate, but we've also seen glimpses into what sort of creations can be made with it (e.g., Battlestar Galactica's adaptation at the end of Season 3) and we're now being denied that by decisions like these.
The only pillaging here is being done by politicians and lobbyists who are preventing new developments from being adapted and evolved. The creative contribution of Hendrix's recording of "All Along the Watchtower" is something many of us appreciate, but we've also seen glimpses into what sort of creations can be made with it (e.g., Battlestar Galactica's adaptation at the end of Season 3) and we're now being denied that by decisions like these.
You're discussing a problem with the licencing price for a copyrighted work and suggesting that it being out of copyright is best for all parties. It would be more prudent to resolve the licencing issue so that artists can build upon others work and net the original artist more money.
The problem is that the music industry is too engrossed with its 'potential profits' that it can't find any 'actual profits'. They'll sell the licence to a 10 second segment of a song for a million dollars, which no one will buy and the record will get more obscure and less in demand just because the licencee could make huge money and their work is integral on that licence.
This could be resolved simply by saying the licence fee is $1 per unit sold per year. A song that sells a million copies in its first year maybe should have a licence fee of a million dollars for valid reasons. A 40 year old recording that shipped 10 units last month, definitely isn't worth a million, and $120 in a licence fee is probably the most money the artist or studio has seen from it in a long time.
I'm sorry, but the abolition of slavery took a civil war to resolve and it didn't have nearly as much money entangled in it as the copyright industry does. So unless The Pirate Bay launches an army, I don't think copyright is going anywhere. It would be more commendable to actually get the clauses exploited by corporations for (and sometimes against) their own gain fixed.
The problem is that the music industry is too engrossed with its 'potential profits' that it can't find any 'actual profits'. They'll sell the licence to a 10 second segment of a song for a million dollars, which no one will buy and the record will get more obscure and less in demand just because the licencee could make huge money and their work is integral on that licence.
This could be resolved simply by saying the licence fee is $1 per unit sold per year. A song that sells a million copies in its first year maybe should have a licence fee of a million dollars for valid reasons. A 40 year old recording that shipped 10 units last month, definitely isn't worth a million, and $120 in a licence fee is probably the most money the artist or studio has seen from it in a long time.
I'm sorry, but the abolition of slavery took a civil war to resolve and it didn't have nearly as much money entangled in it as the copyright industry does. So unless The Pirate Bay launches an army, I don't think copyright is going anywhere. It would be more commendable to actually get the clauses exploited by corporations for (and sometimes against) their own gain fixed.
You are assuming that perpetual copyright is beneficial to society.
Time limited copyright (say 10 years) almost certainly is beneficial, perpetual copyright is harmful both culturally and in the long run economically.
Time limited copyright (say 10 years) almost certainly is beneficial, perpetual copyright is harmful both culturally and in the long run economically.
No in fact I am not, and have said multiple times I am not in favour of perpetual copyright.
Perpetual copyright on copyrights as they are today would cause a great amount of work to be lost due to the owners greed and stupidity.
As per my suggestion on licencing a work could become free-use much sooner than the copyright period expires. Anything with no units shipped would mean its a free license.
As I've said elsewhere, and originally, I'm in favour of 20 years and extensions for derivative works, and perhaps then only on the right to produce derivatives and on no other rights like reproduction.
Perpetual copyright on copyrights as they are today would cause a great amount of work to be lost due to the owners greed and stupidity.
As per my suggestion on licencing a work could become free-use much sooner than the copyright period expires. Anything with no units shipped would mean its a free license.
As I've said elsewhere, and originally, I'm in favour of 20 years and extensions for derivative works, and perhaps then only on the right to produce derivatives and on no other rights like reproduction.
I think we are basically on the same page.
Copyright should be granted for free for a short amount of time.
Once that is up, the copyright holder should have the option of extending the copyright. They should be made to pay for this right, since the extension of the copyright only really benefits them.
This would allow copyright holders to keep a hold of stuff that is obviously profitable, at the same time the vast majority of stuff would enter the public domain.
Copyright should be granted for free for a short amount of time.
Once that is up, the copyright holder should have the option of extending the copyright. They should be made to pay for this right, since the extension of the copyright only really benefits them.
This would allow copyright holders to keep a hold of stuff that is obviously profitable, at the same time the vast majority of stuff would enter the public domain.
Besides the obvious mention of jazz below, how about the instrumental arrangements from (European) classical music to modern instruments; the adaptations to contemporaneous orchestra settings; the musical mashups, so praised in the web 2.0 ? etc...
There are creative interpretations of existing works (or parodies) or simply sampling for electronic music. Creation involves some degree of imitation.
Sampling is blatantly non-creative, "parody" is simply a weasely justification for riding on the coat tails of someone else's accomplishment, "creative interpretation" ditto.
Not a big fan of jazz, I take it?
(It'd be interesting there if the extension were not to 70 years, but to 170 years; much of the music industry's jazz catalogue would retroactively be plagiarism, because it frequently quotes from out of copyright jazz standards, and even older folk songs.)
(It'd be interesting there if the extension were not to 70 years, but to 170 years; much of the music industry's jazz catalogue would retroactively be plagiarism, because it frequently quotes from out of copyright jazz standards, and even older folk songs.)
Copyright extensions are not retroactive, fwiw. Once a copyright has lapsed, it's gone forever.
What about Happy Birthday?
Don't know about the 40's but I expect the Beatles still sell a lot.
It would be interesting if for new laws, there were some sort of judicial opinion that could state to their best of their ability what the purpose of the law was.
i.e. Some legislators write a law, then pass it to a panel of judges, the judges attach a note indicating what they determined the purpose of the law was, and then the law went on for a vote. The opinion wouldn't have any legal effect, but it might provide for a bit more honesty.
i.e. Some legislators write a law, then pass it to a panel of judges, the judges attach a note indicating what they determined the purpose of the law was, and then the law went on for a vote. The opinion wouldn't have any legal effect, but it might provide for a bit more honesty.
Apart from whether or not this is fair, I really hate the EU taking any part in this. I know their authority is not well-defined, but in my view they are overreaching. I've flipped from pro-EU to anti-EU on my voting agenda.
It logically follows that the legislative body who produced this law would also have dreamed up the EU's anti-cookie law. It seems that Brussels sincerely doesn't understand the current role of technology in the world. It makes no sense to pass a law that will extend the enforcement period of a law that is relatively unenforceable today. Increasing the persons, actions or time-period to which a law applies, also increases the potential "criminal class" in the application of that law. This is effect these laws have/or will have on previously innocent populations.In this case a big portion of that population are the technology innovators. I have not spent anytime living in Europe, or paying attention to their pop-culture, but I find that this is a disturbing phenomenon. I imagine that if these laws have been able to pass through the EU legislature, they must somehow fit into a larger trend in European political culture. If these two laws are any indicator, I believe that they won't be the last to deter tech innovation and opportunity in Europe
I can see the court in Brussels going, "Mm, yes. I know what will motivate them to create better music! We'll make sure they own it when they are 105 years old! There's just too little good music these days, and this will make all the difference."
Joking. Obviously it's special interests pushing to make money from their 1950s creations after having been incentivized enough to make them in the first place, at the expense of the public.