'That's All Right' Soon To Enter UK Public Domain 519
jwlidtnet writes "Reuters is reporting that Elvis's "That's All Right"--currently an unlikely hit in Great Britain--is soon to enter the public domain in that country, followed by other milestones of popular music as Britain's fifty-year protection period comes to an end. Naturally, rights owners are outraged, regarding it as a "wakeup call" for Britain to adopt something similar to the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, to end this "discrepancy between the United States and the EU." Copyright law uniformity has of course been a sore issue in recent years, with the exportation of "DMCA-alike" legislation raising the ire of many. Uniformity on an issue this divisive might be difficult to achieve politically."
It entered the public domain 20 years ago.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hope the governments don't give in (Score:5, Informative)
Elvis didn't write That's All Right. It was written by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup.
The article is talking about the copyright to Elvis's recording of the tune. The tune itself is presumably already in the public domain in Great Britain.
Re:Discrepancy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is what's supposed to happen (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Incentive (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, if it turns out that Elvis is still alive, and he records a duet with Tupac or Biggie, my head is going to explode. No more incentives for Elvis to produce new music, please
Not in the public domain (Score:5, Informative)
That means that the European rules mainly cause classical music to enter the public domain at this point.
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:4, Informative)
I see copyright as a reasonable compromise - let me say who can and cannot copy stuff I create, for a limited period of time, so that I may profit from it. Like money or loathe it, we all need it - our modern way of living just doesn't lend itself to a pure barter economy.
I'm not leasing anything from (or to) anyone when I create a copyrightable work. I am entering into an agreement with society, that people may not copy what I did verbatim for some period of time, so that I may (attempt to) earn sufficient money to make my living creating more things, such that everyone benefits. I get to live and do what I enjoy, you get to enjoy the fruits of my labours.
I agree that copyright holders should not be granted essentially indefinite extensions. I also think that the period should be different for different types of work - there seems little benefit to society to opening up 50 (or even 10) year old computer code for copying, for example. I don't think that that invalidates the concept of copyright, however; I can't see how else the creators of such works could be compensated if not for copyright. Musicians can tour, but authors, etc? Patronage would work for a small number of creators, but then only the truly exceptional and truly lucky would be able to create full-time. Sure, some people would do so, no matter the hardships they had to endure (and I consider them to be truly exceptional). I still think that the nett result would be a drastic decrease in the number doing so, however, and the amount of stuff being created. How that would enrich society escapes me.
Re:Discrepancy? (Score:3, Informative)
Which makes the whole issue of "That's All Right" somewhat confused, in that Arthur Crudup, who wrote the song, died in 1974, so while it will be possible to sell the Elvis recording without paying the Presley estate, it will still be illegal unless the current rights-holders to Crudup's work get their cut until 2044.
Re:well well well (Score:3, Informative)
Britain = England + Scotland + Wales
I'm English, and I do not wish to be associated with the Welsh, thank you very much
Re:What I find really scary... (Score:2, Informative)
Point out the *good* things about copyright expiry (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not in the UK or anywhere in the EU, but for those who are I'd like to point out that about now would be a very good time to bring to the attention of your politicians things like Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.net], which directly benefit from the expiry of copyright.
Certainly part of the problem is that it's not always clear what possible benefits there could possibly be for ever letting works exit copyright. Gutenberg is an active project that's both becoming succesful, and demonstrates that people are out there trying to make an active effort to benefit from existing law.
If politicians don't realise that people are benefiting from existing law, they'll have far less reason to consider not changing it when lobbied by the corporates. It's a bonus that Gutenberg can quite correctly claim that rather than ripping off other people's work, it's saving and making accessible a lot of valuable resources that most likely would simply have vanished otherwise.... and without a reasonable expiry of copyright this simply coldn't happen.
Re:well well well (Score:3, Informative)
United Kingdom = Great Britain + Northern Ireland
I hadn't forgetten ;)
Re:"Suffer loss of income" ?? (Score:1, Informative)
Look no further than Disney (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Very few cases have dealt with this since it's a rare set of circumstances, but there was one that was something like Comedy III v. New Line Cinema. The public domain argument won.
The trick is to remember that trademarks are only granted where the public can rely on that mark to identify that marked goods or services stem from a single source. If copyright expires, then there are multiple possible sources for works that are DERIVATIVE of the public domain original, as well as copies of the original itself. Thus, the public can no longer rely on the trademark to identify the sole source of those works.
Other goods or services are different; Peter Pan is in the public domain, but that doesn't matter in the worlds of bus lines or peanut butter.
Re:Sunny-day capitalists (Score:1, Informative)
And in fact, royalties still are paid on that one, since Peter Pan was granted a sort of perpetual copyright in the UK by act of Parliament.