54102
story
Comments: 211 +- Your Rights Online: UK Copyright Under Fire Again on Friday December 08 2006, @12:41PM
Posted
by
Zonk
on Friday December 08 2006, @12:41PM
from the can't-have-that-fifty-year-old-music-go-free dept.
from the can't-have-that-fifty-year-old-music-go-free dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmusic.gif); width:60px; height:49px;
music
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmediaall.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
media
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
stupid_is writes "Following on from the story on the Gower Report in the UK, a host of musicians (over 4,500 of them, including poor, starving stars such as U2, Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel) have taken out a big ad in the FT to back the call for an extension to copyright in the UK. Allegedly, that's what the British public wants — although the survey seems to be asking a different, rather biased, question." From the article: "A spokesman for the Open Rights Group, which campaigns for greater digital rights, said: 'The big music firms have done a good job of persuading some artists to sign up to this but anyone who reads the Gowers review will see it demolishes the arguments for extension. An awful lot of content creators are not represented by this and recognise an extension will do nothing for creativity and nothing for the public.'"
Related Stories
UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws 229 comments
Dead Musicians Signing Media Rights Petitions 357 comments
It's lucky you're going so slowly, because you're going in the wrong direction.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
It's logical they would feel this way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright was instituted for society so work would be created. It was not instituted for the creators. It was instituted to encourage them to create for society. I do not see any evidence that creators are boycotting and refusing to create new works because they "only" have copyright for 50 years.
Re:It's logical they would feel this way. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even to encourage the artists to create. Never, during the whole of human history, has there been difficulty in getting people to participate in creative works. There are going to be people who want to make music, paintings, movies, and books, even if there's no reward but fame.
The purpose is to make it economically feasible to publish works. Without copyright protection, the large investment to bring a work to market would not have been worth it, considering that someone else could simply copy that work and sell it if it actually became popular enough to cover your investment. Therefore, record companies and book publishers would not have been able to make a profit from funding new works.
Therefore, as the technology improves and the price of development and distribution costs come down, and it becomes cheaper to bring a work to market, it follows naturally that we should become less strict on copyright protections. Should development costs, production costs, and distribution costs ever reach the point where they're free, then it probably means that we'll have reached the point where IP protection is completely obsolete.
Parent
Re:It's logical they would feel this way. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I do agree that copyright terms have been severely extended beyond that minimum (anything beyond the life of the creator comes to mind). In fact, copyright terms are so long now that creative efforts are hindered, by blocking the creativity of people who want to make derivative works or even protect the public existence of original works.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be amazed if you could come up with evidence of that. Take all the works that existed before copyrights, and all those released directly to public domain (or a creative-commons/open-source license), and compare them to those which have been copyrighted, in terms of quality?
You are ignoring the context these works were created in. In the example of music, people tend to mention that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. had no copyright protection. Why would they need protection if a vast majority of the population had no means to copy their work? The only way to hear a Bach performance was to go listen to him perform, or find someone who was able to play his works at an equal level. Nowadays, you can download high quality recordings in seconds.
In the past, creators had natural
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I understand it, originally, copyright was a monopoly handed out by the King, usually in return for money.
This is the problem - although there have been laudable attempts to bend 'intellectual monopolies' to the benefit of society (limited times for the advancement... etc,) at root, copyright is about restricting dissemination of culture/creativity for the benefit of a few (the monopoly holder of that creative expression): the noble
Re:It's logical they would feel this way. (Score:5, Interesting)
It was the Americans that shifted the idea of copyright as something ANYBODY could get for a small price per document. It was a radical then as GPL is now.. for about the same reasons.
American's seem to forget Congress is FORBIDDEN to grant "titles of Nobility"... that doesn't just mean Congress can't call somebody "King" or we have to kick a girl out because she marries a REAL prince. A title of "nobility" is something that endures.. you pass on or inherit. Something "abstract" like a knight in service to a queen, or a lord over land... "IP" as a concept is beginning to fall into a "title of nobility" status. Only this time it's not one person that gets the "title" it's a corporation. YUCK! That makes it worse because the corporation never actually DIES. It makes the executives of the RIAA and MPAA like the religious priest class in other cultures. Only they can spread knowledge, entertainment, and even legal documents of the govt because of their "IP" property. Only they have the ability to protect "IP" property.. so you have to pay "fealty" and "prostration" to them to be heard.... that's 100% Un-American!
Parent
Re:It's logical they would feel this way. (Score:5, Insightful)
I once considered myself a bass player. At bars we would play songs & work 50% originals with 50% covers. We were pretty much illegally performing songs (Don't Let Me Down by The Beatls, Karma Police by Radiohead, Yellow by Coldplay, The Door by The Turin Brakes, etc.). Now, why do we do this? It pleases the crows and shows them that we like their music and that if they listen to ours hopefully they see the influence and elements. Yes, every band borrows these things--you can't deny it.
It doesn't make any sense that Sir Paul should say this. Look at the line up of The Beatles' first album [wikipedia.org]:
- 1. "I Saw Her Standing There" - 2:55
- 2. "Misery" - 1:50
- 3. "Anna (Go to Him)" (Arthur Alexander) - 2:57
- 4. "Chains" (Gerry Goffin/Carole King) - 2:26
- 5. "Boys" (Luther Dixon/Wes Farrell) - 2:27
- 6. "Ask Me Why" - 2:27
- 7. "Please Please Me" - 2:03
- [edit] Side Two
- 1. "Love Me Do" - 2:22
- 2. "P.S. I Love You" - 2:05
- 3. "Baby It's You" (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach) - 2:38
- 4. "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" - 1:59
- 5. "A Taste of Honey" (Bobby Scott/Ric Marlow) - 2:05
- 6. "There's a Place" - 1:52
- 7. "Twist and Shout" (Phil Medley/Bert Russell) - 2:33
Ok, so nearly half the songs are covers of other musicians. Now I would like to ask Paul how it is that a starting band (exactly like him) gets enough money to pay the licensing costs to half their songs which are covers. Was it easy for you, Paul? Would it be that easy for bands today? Shouldn't you be honored that musicians are influenced by you and worship you?When you look at the irony of Paul's statements considering that first album, it really makes me wonder how much money he'll need before he's a happy man. Does he realize the implications this has on the music in his country and possibly the world?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm saying it is logical that they would think things that benefit them are reasonable even if they are not. You ask 4500 artists who are making money off 50 year old copyrighted material if it is reasonable to extend the copyright and change the rules (even for dead people) and of course-- they feel it is.
It's also logical that as a cover band performer you would feel differently.
It's very difficult to find what is truly reasonable. Everyone asserts "Well the thing that ben
Re:It's logical they would feel this way. (Score:4, Funny)
Since he is about to have half of it taken away as a divorce settlement, then the answer is probably "about twice as much as he has now"
Parent
As for U2.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mechanical royalties for authors are currently at $.09 per song. In 1963, it was $.02 per song. So $.12 of each copy of Please Please Me was paid to outside authors. Whoopdi do. Plus, since the royalties are only paid on copies sold, there's really no burden at all. In any case it's paid by the label.
How does such ignorance get modded +5 insightfu
Who cares what the artists want? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that's an inflammatory statement, but law is supposed to benefit the public. If it doesn't benefit the public then there's no reason for a law to exist.
Copyright benefits the public because it benefits everyone. But extending copyright into eternity benefits only a select few.
I couldn't care less what 4,500 artists want. It's a tiny slice of the population. Why support their greed? I think we can do without U2 anyway :D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moeny in 50 Years Time isn't Survival (Score:3, Interesting)
Property is both an individual right and a social concept. There are forms of property that are not recognised because to do so would bring more harm than
Re: (Score:2)
Right is a stupid word in this context. Calling it a legal power or some such is saner imo. If we don't have copyright, then they don't have the legal power which we then don't protect. Simple. Taking away copyright wouldn't be a discouragement per se, but rather a lack of encouragement by means of monopoly. I do believe if copyright wouldn't give so much profit to authors they'd be encouraged to produce st
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who cares what the artists want? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd like to see is: 25 years. One renewal for an additional 20. That gives 45 years total. If you haven't made enough off of something in in 45 years, tough shit. Do something new.
Parent
Copyright schemes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who cares what the artists want? (Score:4, Insightful)
Record companies are somehow able to sell a million records and still have the artists owe THEM money after all that. That's a much more real problem than lost sales.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody asks the right questions about copyright. These arguments which revolve around "people will still make art" are mostly nonsense, because they ignore both the quantity, quality, and cultural significance of art. Of course people will still write and perform music even if they can't do it as their day job. But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.
Again using a historical example, the better question is: how many a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid the reality is that laws benefits the ones who make them. Until we get rid of software patents and similar aberrations in IP laws, money will keep flowing to the wealthy and lawyers while hindering development.
I can live ... With or without U(2).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it greedy to want to retain control to your own work? I might disagree with Paul Mcartney on the law, but I wouldn't call his position greedy. I (and you) would probably feel the same way in his situation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, I do get what you're suggesting, however you're ignoring a very important part of your argument...the artist's ARE part of the public. Copyright laws are (intended) to protect THEIR rights...not some magical right of the people that did not create the music to have free access to someone else's work.
Don't take that wrong, I'm not discussing the validity of copyr
Re:Who cares what the artists want? (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm shocked you misunderstand copyright so fundamentally. The function of copyright is to provide artists with protection for their works. The theory is that this stimulates the creation of new works, thus enriching society. And *that* is the benefit to society at large (the creation of new works). Thus, the idea that "copyright does NOT exist to benefit you" is flat out ridiculous.
The problem is that extending copyrights will likely do nothing to spur creation of new works. All it will likely do is place more power in the hands of corporations and the rich, who can afford to litigate to ensure their works are suitably protected. Meanwhile, if the extension the retroactive (as was the extension introduced in the Sonny Bono Act), materials from the public domain will be *removed*, which amounts to theft, IMHO.
Parent
Re:Who cares what the artists want? (Score:5, Insightful)
It also doesn't allow existing works to become part of the body of art which current and future artists can draw from for inspiration. There's absolutely no good reason that someone shouldn't be able to go out and hack on or cover Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", for instance. The music is more than 30 years old, the group of people that created that artisic work doesn't exist anymore, and sales from that album do absolutely zero to encourage more works at this point - there hasn't been a Floyd album released in almost 13 years, and there aren't too many visible on the horizon.
The ridiculous terms do nothing to benefit the greater good, which should have been the only factor to look at when the extensions were considered. The financial well being of any single artist or company pales in comparison to the cultural damage being done to the rest of society.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares what the artists want? (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, you don't often hear from people who create content, and will defend it 'up to a point'. The only voices you hear are the 'everyone download my stuff' anti-copyright gang, and the 'its my property for the next thousand years' brigade.
Judging how long something should remain copyrighted is tricky, and probably should vary depending on the content type. Some things are useless after a few years, some things cost megabucks to make and payoff slowly. The idea that ANYTHING should remain in copyright for over 50 years is just bullshit though. If, as a creative person, I can't come up with another good idea every 50 years, I need to find another flipping job.
My own field is PC games, and I reckon 15 years is a reasonable length of time. Nobody is making real cash on games on older than this, and if they are, they probably made a shedload at release time.
If theres a petition from content creators requesting that copyright NOT be lengthened, just point me at it. We need emphasis on shorter copyright periods, but better enforcement (and fair use for format-shifting etc).
But U2 can just fuck off.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
An ad to tell the public what they want (Score:5, Funny)
Lessig Blog: Signed by dead artists (Score:5, Informative)
From Lawrence Lessig's blog [lessig.org]:
Even more misleadinger (Score:2, Informative)
"Fair play for musicians" (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair use for people.
Tag suggestion (Score:2)
U2 = hypocrites? (Score:3, Insightful)
how sad (Score:2)
Is there an easily accessible list of who signed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there an easily accessible list of who signe (Score:2)
(I wonder how many of the rest knew about the advert beforehand?)
Re: (Score:2)
Sir Paul Has Failed Me (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were a musician, I would be honored that so many people are waiting after those 50 years to use my music. The reason I feel this way and Paul doesn't is that he's going down in history as the one of the greatest singer/songwriters of all time no matter how long the copyright is held on that song. I'm not.
But why, in God's name would he want them extended to 95 years? Well, he made quite a bit of music after the Beatles & has been touring with that on and off. Some of it good & some of it quite bad. Either way, if he wants to cash out one last time before he kicks it, the rights to those songs will fetch much more if the buyers have them for 65 more years as opposed to 20 more years.
So that's what it's coming down to, not this 'fair play' bullshit. Paul's not hoping to be playing his music fairly after he dies
Who knows why they claim to need this money. Especially U2, that actually shocks me. Bono used to be all about people and to hell with money. I guess that isn't true anymore though he might try to show that he wants to keep making money to help people in a country less fortunate. At least he's got that going for him.
I saw an interview with Paul once where he basically said, "Yeah, I sold Michael Jackson the rights to these songs
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The musicians already have the copyright for their entire lives, PLUS 70 years after they die.
Re:Sir Paul Has Failed Me - So have the facts (Score:3, Informative)
Paul McCartney sued the Beatles to dissolve their partnership because he objected to the other 3 naming Allen Klein as their manager over his objections. Not only did Paul win in court, he was proven right that Allen Klein was a bad choice. Paul McCartney NEVER sued the Beatles over songs he wrote. Making that up doesn't make it true.
Sigh. Again, you are
There is only one reason for this... (Score:2)
"People seem to think whoever has the most when they die wins...well, your dead fucknut. So...you didn't win."
Sure (Score:2)
Extension of greed.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The protection of copyright (and other IP forms for that matter) is intended to provide a reward to those who would contribute to the public good; to culture, society, the fine arts and our understanding of the human condition.
To this extent there is a good basis for creating a social contract whereby we protect in our courts of law the creative work of an
Ian Anderson (Score:3, Insightful)
Best responce was a letter that the FT published that basically said:
Hey Ian, You want to make more money? THEN WRITE SOME NEW SONGS!
Honestly, these songwriters, even the great ones, are thick as a brick sometimes.
Other effects of not extending copyright,. (Score:5, Insightful)
Content in the public domain waters down the argument for requiring ALL content is to be 'protected'. If half of the worlds music was public domain, lobbyists would have a hard time persuading lawmakers to put restrictions on ALL devices. This has been evident with the RIAA continuously argue why DRM is required for ALL music to prevent copyright infringement. These arguments usually fail to recognize the existence of non-copyrighted music (Creative Commons etc), and certainly make no provision for it in their argument or 'industry drafted bills' (e.g DMCA). This results in systems like the Zune wi-fi sharing system which applies DRM when transferring songs, whether the media requires protection or not, and with total disregard for other licences such as 'copyleft' which may expressly forbid it.
We've seen from the Napster and Gokster cases in the 'war on file sharing' argued that "ALL file sharing is infringement of copyright", and fails to recognize the legal uses of file sharing systems. Again, if half of the worlds music was public domain, media conglomerates' argument is significantly watered down. Services like Youtube and Google Video have already been targeted, and we've seen media companies desire to shutdown the service altogether although Youtube and Google video are exceptional in that they've been careful to prevent copyright infringement from the start, and the result has been for the media companies attempts to re-define infringement. (i.e teenagers lip-sinking songs). Again their aim is to prove the majority of content that is free is infringing copyright and the services providing it should be shut-down.
Big Media have a very huge stake in extending the duration of copyright, well beyond the immediate issue of royalties for artists. (The amount of these royalties that is passed to artists is another issue altogether). The music industry and BPI will likely "pull out all the stops" to prevent an extension of copyright, which we are starting to see it with the use of artists that have done very very well out of record company who may 'win the hearts and minds of the people'. Big Media will be lobbying politicians as fast as they can, and will no doubt us scare tactics where possible. If all this British music is released into public domain, it will make shutting down file sharing networks much harder.
The BPI (and RIAA) have responsibilities "in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties" which relies on a vast library of content being under their control. Music that us currently in their control placed in the public domain erodes their breadth of responsibility and will ultimately affect their cut of the royalties.
The extension of copyright by 50 years has far further implications than just the royalties paid to the artists. It weakens many of the arguments of the BPI and RIAA groups, and reducing their value and their income. This argument is not about the artists getting more money, it is about the BPI and RIAA retaining their value and ability to "fight the crime of music theft".
They cannot fight the "crime" if the music is free to copy and share.
The American Revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the content industries seem trying to push us back to those bad old days once more. It was a bad idea then. It's still a bad idea now. And the worst idea of all is making them retroactive. Those works were already created. They don't need this extension to encourage that creative effort. Even if the laws were changed, they should only apply to new works.
As for Sir Paul, he should just shut the F* up! He's made his pile and can't claim poverty in my eyes. In fact, I rather like him less today than yesterday due to his participation in all this.