Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU (Read 18542 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #25 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Let's assume for a second you are an artist and you only had one hit single? is it it or is it not right that you should be able reap royalties for the song every time someone play's it in their television commercial, movie, internet music service, sporting event, or other ceremonial gathering? I know if I was a popular artist and my career tanked after one hit single that my children's children would be taken care of for the next 10 decades.


Let's assume for a second you are a mason and you only layed only one brick? is it it or is it not right that you should be able reap royalties for the brick every time someone walks by it, sees it, touches it, stand on the wall it's part of, or otherwise uses it? I know if I was a popular mason and my career tanked after one hit brick that my children's children would be taken care of for the next 10 decades.

Obviously I think it's rediculous, no matter the number of hits you 'produce', you're gonna have to work as hard as we all do for our bread and butter. And your kids certainly shouldn't have any 'rights' based on your work. That's feudalism, inheritance and stuff, which we've put behind us for good reason. There's such a thing as public domain, and if you don't want your creative work entering it, keep it hidden in your safe.

And even then, the whole system regulating royalties isn't based on, not even related to the copyright duration. No officer of the court makes sure you get your money every time someone plays it/thinks it/hears it, thank god. As an artist you negotiate a contract with a record company, and no law AT ALL puts a limit on them giving you royalties after 50 years. If you negotiate well, you can have it the way you want.

In reality, this is only going to serve the big record companies: they're not going to keep track of the artist of his/her children or what, they're just going to be collecting and collecting, putting the money in their already ample pockets, just like they do already (ask almost any artist affiliated with a big label).

Bad idea.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #26 –
Quote
@HotshotGG: You would be surprised to see how fragile digital formats are. Not because of the physical storage, but the playback mechanism.

I am sure you've heard here asked more than once, which lossy format is more future proof. Usually lossless formats are considered future proof because the chance of not being able to convert one to a newer one is small.


You are right about that. I am not going to speculate on the future of storing stuff in a digital format.

Quote
In reality, this is only going to serve the big record companies: they're not going to keep track of the artist of his/her children or what, they're just going to be collecting and collecting, putting the money in their already ample pockets, just like they do already (ask almost any artist affiliated with a big label).


Well they shouldn't be signed to a major label then. That's the price they pay for signing with a major label in hoping to gain some exposure. I am sure they have to be getting something even though it might be less then what the record company is making. If I were an artist and I really felt that a major label were screwing me out of a quick buck I would drop my deal with the label. Trent Reznor did exactly this with NIN after he decided to distribute everthing digitally and got signed to a label that is in no way affliated with the RIAA. There problem solved. 

Quote
Obviously I think it's rediculous, no matter the number of hits you 'produce', you're gonna have to work as hard as we all do for our bread and butter. And your kids certainly shouldn't have any 'rights' based on your work. That's feudalism, inheritance and stuff, which we've put behind us for good reason. There's such a thing as public domain, and if you don't want your creative work entering it, keep it hidden in your safe.


It's the entertainment business it's not an IT job. I think people around here are a little to "liberal" (not liberal in a political sense) but you get my drift. Forget this whole public domain argument. If it's out there and people like it you should be able to collect royalties on it. Enough said.  If a bunch of IT professionals were told they were going be rewarded for writing one piece of software for the next ten decades they would not be complaining (regardless of how well it worked). (I use that example, because I am speculating about 25% of the members around here work in the IT industry).
budding I.T professional

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #27 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Forget this whole public domain argument. If it's out there and people like it you should be able to collect royalties on it. Enough said.
Whenever anyone is convinced an issue is so black and white, it's usually concrete proof that they don't really understand it.

If it wasn't for the "public domain", lots of things wouldn't be "out there" - because their existence is based upon previous public domain works. They re-use them, be it the story, the lyric, the tune - whatever. Everything from Beethoven to Disney cartoons have worked this way. No public domain, no easy re-use.

I'm looking forward to The Beatles recordings entering the public domain. Then they can be legally remixed, remastered properly by third parties (the official CDs are embarrassingly bad quality - though this year, like most other years, there's the promise of a new release), re-packaged, and sold cheaply.


Or look at the argument this way: we are a democratically elected government. You are an artist. You create things that, by their nature, you cannot control because they can be copied. You want us to protect your work, and prevent other people from having access to it unless they pay you. You want us to prevent people re-using your work without your permission. We agree to do this, so you can make money from your work, and earn a living from being an artist. What are you going to give us in return?

The amazing thing is that all that is asked by the government is for a limit on the time that protection is given. There's no charge for the protection, and no extra tax to pay. Quite amazing really.


Interestingly, when it comes to inventions rather than artistic works, there are fees that must be paid to the government to protected, and the protection is for a much shorter time (20 years, rather than 50 or life+70). This is because giving a monopoly on an invention comes at an even greater cost to society than giving a monopoly on an artistic work.

So, do you think patents should be eternal, or at least "life-long"? If so, you're probably on your own.

Artistic works aren't nearly as important, but they're important enough (IMO) that they also cannot have life-long protection.

I guess if you think they should have life-long or eternal protection, then by extension you don't think they're at all important.

Cheers,
David.


Quote from: HotshotGG on
I understand your argument, but we live in the 21st century. If this were back in the 40's or 50's when movies were still on film reels that I could see your point. The tools we have to archive stuff nowadays I am assuming are digital
Most of the masters for the first ~five years of CD used equipment like this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCM_adaptor

...i.e. video tape! The digits were stored as luma pulses. There was no error correction.

For anything that hasn't been re-mastered since, that is often still the master copy. It probably won't play of course, meaning the best copy is an unscratched CD, probably owned by an unsuspecting private individual. (i.e. exactly the same situation as with discs from the 1930s!!!).


You could argue that it should be possible to archive it all properly - of course. But it was equally possible to archive metal masters properly in the 1930s, tapes properly in the 1960s etc etc etc - it's not rocket science (it was actually easier and cheaper than digital - stick it in a sufficiently cold room and it'll last a century). Yet how much have we lost? Are you optimistic(!) enough to believe we won't see the same problems with digital content?

btw, unless it's intentionally destroyed, Safety Film stands up pretty well - far better than video tape. That's the scary thing about digital audio - even the copies that people think they've kept are probably useless.


The most likely thing (copyright aside) is that people will look back in centuries time and see the 20th century as the new "dark ages" because they'll be so few primary sources.

Cheers,
David.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #28 –
Could some entity not be funded by those who gain benefit from the copyright which would require a mandatory submission of master recordings in order to qualify for copyright protection?
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #29 –
There was an interesting period in movie history when copyright registration involved printing out the film frame-by-frame onto a roll of paper, and depositing the roll with an American library (I forget which one - probably Congress).

Lousy quality, but it's the only way some films have survived.


As for the suggestion: some record companies like to keep their master recordings under lock and key, so wouldn't like to deposit them (or copies) with a third party. They could be made to I guess, though security would have to be tight. If copyright lasts for a lifetime (or 100 years) you're creating an institution that can't actually do anything with the articles it holds for 100 years.

The problem would remain that the record company would own the copyright for "life". You'd think they would try to make some commercial use of everything they have, but I know people who have approached record companies, wanting to pay the record company for the right to release some obscure out-of-print (but still in copyright) recording, and the record company just wasn't interested. The recording just sits in the vaults, unheard, unavailable.

Cheers,
David.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #30 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Quote
In reality, this is only going to serve the big record companies: they're not going to keep track of the artist of his/her children or what, they're just going to be collecting and collecting, putting the money in their already ample pockets, just like they do already (ask almost any artist affiliated with a big label).


Well they shouldn't be signed to a major label then. That's the price they pay for signing with a major label in hoping to gain some exposure. I am sure they have to be getting something even though it might be less then what the record company is making. If I were an artist and I really felt that a major label were screwing me out of a quick buck I would drop my deal with the label.

"I am sure" is shorthand for "I really don't know but I can't imagine certain people exploiting other people in this day and age". Really, read up on musicians and their experiences with labels.

In short the labels have monopolized sales of music and music in the public space (with contract radio, contract commercials, etc) and as such you really don't have that much of a choice as a starting musician if you want to go primetime. So pretending there's some sort of choice here is delusional, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the system.

Quote
Trent Reznor did exactly this with NIN after he decided to distribute everthing digitally and got signed to a label that is in no way affliated with the RIAA. There problem solved. 

Really doesn't work if you're new to the scene. People with big names (NIN, Radiohead) can do it, because they've got their fanbase installed. As a newcomer your chances of starting out this way and making it are very very very slim.

Quote
Quote
Obviously I think it's rediculous, no matter the number of hits you 'produce', you're gonna have to work as hard as we all do for our bread and butter. And your kids certainly shouldn't have any 'rights' based on your work. That's feudalism, inheritance and stuff, which we've put behind us for good reason. There's such a thing as public domain, and if you don't want your creative work entering it, keep it hidden in your safe.


It's the entertainment business it's not an IT job. I think people around here are a little to "liberal" (not liberal in a political sense) but you get my drift. Forget this whole public domain argument. If it's out there and people like it you should be able to collect royalties on it. Enough said.  If a bunch of IT professionals were told they were going be rewarded for writing one piece of software for the next ten decades they would not be complaining (regardless of how well it worked). (I use that example, because I am speculating about 25% of the members around here work in the IT industry).

I assume with IT-job you mean contract work in general, like how 90% of us make our money. As a musician you effectively work as a freelancer, so why not build the system that way? We havn't guarenteed 'regular' freelancer, through law, any income whatsoever; it's up to them to negotiate beneficial contracts and to make the money they need (and possible insure themselves against long stretches of unemployment). An architect doesn't collect royalties on his buildings, he just makes sure he gets the money he, and his contractors, think he deserves and invests it wisely.

Incidentally, this is already how it works, with the added effect that the labels have made a business of monopolizing the (public) music space, making money, collecting royalties based on (too) long copyright terms, and skimming the margins royally in their own favor. It's these labels that actually try to make to case for copyright extensions, notsomuch the artists.

If a musician is a freelancer, why'd we need laws requiring them to be paid for the amount their work is used? It means we'd require officers of the court to actually track every single playcount, which is a huge waste of human resources and, IMSNHO, the wrong way to go about it.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #32 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Or look at the argument this way: we are a democratically elected government. You are an artist. You create things that, by their nature, you cannot control because they can be copied. You want us to protect your work, and prevent other people from having access to it unless they pay you. You want us to prevent people re-using your work without your permission. We agree to do this, so you can make money from your work, and earn a living from being an artist. What are you going to give us in return?

The amazing thing is that all that is asked by the government is for a limit on the time that protection is given. There's no charge for the protection, and no extra tax to pay. Quite amazing really.

Laws and rights are not the same as prevention. I don't see the deal as so amazing; there's no policing cost with IP (unlike physical private property, when you're robbed you call the police, and someone has to pay for that service - i.e. the taxpayer). In relation to IP, the government says police it yourself (and good luck with the legal fees).

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Brent on
An architect doesn't collect royalties on his buildings, he just makes sure he gets the money he, and his contractors, think he deserves and invests it wisely.


I'm not all up on architecture compensation, but the continuing royalties would come from the same design being used again, not from some annual design rental payment on a single building.  Some townhouse or small apartment buildings have tens of thousands of instances.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #34 –
Quote from: DonP on
Quote from: Brent on

An architect doesn't collect royalties on his buildings, he just makes sure he gets the money he, and his contractors, think he deserves and invests it wisely.


I'm not all up on architecture compensation, but the continuing royalties would come from the same design being used again, not from some annual design rental payment on a single building.  Some townhouse or small apartment buildings have tens of thousands of instances.

However that may be, it isn't mandated by a government. Nothing as is prevents an artist to negotiate for 95 years of royalties from his/her label.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #35 –
And nothing prevents them selling their recording for 95 years, or however long they live!

It's just that, after 50 years, anyone else can too.

If they remix the recording (even something subtle - e.g. slightly different levels or stereo placement or new 5.1 mix), that remix gains a new copyright from the year it's first sold, also lasting 50 years.

Of course, if copyright in the original is extended to life, and hence no one else can sell a copy, it reduces the incentive to go back to the master tapes and make a new mix, a 5.1 mix, etc etc because they can keep charging top whack for the original.

Cheers,
David.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #36 –
Quote
"I am sure" is shorthand for "I really don't know but I can't imagine certain people exploiting other people in this day and age". Really, read up on musicians and their experiences with labels.

In short the labels have monopolized sales of music and music in the public space (with contract radio, contract commercials, etc) and as such you really don't have that much of a choice as a starting musician if you want to go primetime. So pretending there's some sort of choice here is delusional, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the system.


There is a choice. You don't have to be signed to a major label if you want to release your stuff as musician. I know plenty of artists that are signed to independent labels. They probably won't ever get as much exposure as if they would if they went mainstream, but at the same time they probably are keeping most of the money they make off of records sales as result rather then getting a small percentage of it if they were signed to major labels.

Quote
Unhealthy.


It's not unhealthy. It's a bunch of whining technocrats looking for something else to complain about. People infringe on copyright's on YouTube all of the time. It serves them right. Follow the T.O.S like everyone else. 
budding I.T professional

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #37 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Quote
"I am sure" is shorthand for "I really don't know but I can't imagine certain people exploiting other people in this day and age". Really, read up on musicians and their experiences with labels.

In short the labels have monopolized sales of music and music in the public space (with contract radio, contract commercials, etc) and as such you really don't have that much of a choice as a starting musician if you want to go primetime. So pretending there's some sort of choice here is delusional, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the system.


There is a choice. You don't have to be signed to a major label if you want to release your stuff as musician. I know plenty of artists that are signed to independent labels. They probably won't ever get as much exposure as if they would if they went mainstream, but at the same time they probably are keeping most of the money they make off of records sales as result rather then getting a small percentage of it if they were signed to major labels.

Quote
Unhealthy.


It's not unhealthy. It's a bunch of whining technocrats looking for something else to complain about. People infringe on copyright's on YouTube all of the time. It serves them right. Follow the T.O.S like everyone else. 

By taking quotes out of context, not actually engaging in discussion, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the way music is distributed to our ears, and not recognizing the fact that music is culture is a living thing that humans are naturally inspired by to create new things, and the inherent desire to share, you're making it clear you're not at all interested to understand what's going on, but prefer to blindly hold your ground.

Nuff said.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #38 –
Quote
By taking quotes out of context, not actually engaging in discussion, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the way music is distributed to our ears, and not recognizing the fact that music is culture is a living thing that humans are naturally inspired by to create new things, and the inherent desire to share, you're making it clear you're not at all interested to understand what's going on, but prefer to blindly hold your ground.

Nuff said.


I do understand what's going on. This is exactly what I mean by too "liberal" around here. I have yet to see another argument in favor of this extension to the EU copyright for up to 95 years. Obviously everyone around here is going to be against it with the exception of one person. Personally I don't live in the EU and in the U.S I am pretty sure it's 95 years to be exact according to the Copyright Term Extension Act.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...d=f:publ298.105

Let's be honest here. Does anyone actually think that for one second that the EU is not going to pass this bill? An online petition isn't going to change anything. Didn't they try this with the Internet Radio Equality Act in the U.S two years ago? Internet radio was suppose to go "silent", because independent radio stations had to pay higher royalties and they simply couldn't afford them? (Granted that case was different). That bill was on some members of the House of Representatives desk, but hasn't actually gone anywhere to my knowledge or was voted down.  I mean what's the point really? 
budding I.T professional

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #39 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Let's be honest here. Does anyone actually think that for one second that the EU is not going to pass this bill?
Yes. It's already been defeated at the national level here in the UK. Contrary to all the record industry's hopes and expectations, and against their powerful lobbying, well placed artists campaigning on national news outlets etc, the independent Gowers review said "no", and the UK government accepted this decision.

Will we have this imposed on us at the European level? Maybe, but it's not a foregone conclusion. We're not a "United States of Europe" yet! The Europe project is hardly popular in the UK, but even in other parts of Europe a move like this will bring it into new/further disrepute.


Yes, in the USA, your government was "bought" on this issue. The whole world is not the USA. And (FYI, IMO) most of the world is more liberal than the USA.

This isn't USA bashing - your own constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) that says copyright should be limited in duration. It's the greedy media companies who said "if copyright cannot last forever under our constitution, we want it for 'forever less one day'", and it's the US Supreme Court who are happy to let them approach this target piecemeal.

It's my understanding (from the other side of the pond) that people usually see such "unconstitutional" behaviour as a bad thing, but I guess money blinds.

Cheers,
David.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #40 –
Quote
Yes, in the USA, your government was "bought" on this issue. The whole world is not the USA. And (FYI, IMO) most of the world is more liberal than the USA.


I don't know the specifics, but I don't believe they were "bought" on the issue. I can't see who voted in favor of what on the bill simply, because it was done through a voice vote. Just to give you a timeline President Clinton signed the bill into office and he was more "liberal" then our last president was. Our next president is more to the center left so it will be interesting to see what his take is on IP law and Computer Policy in the U.S.

Quote
This isn't USA bashing - your own constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) that says copyright should be limited in duration. It's the greedy media companies who said "if copyright cannot last forever under our constitution, we want it for 'forever less one day'", and it's the US Supreme Court who are happy to let them approach this target piecemeal.


They cannot extend it forever as it is considered illegal as you point out very well. The way I see if it's 95 years in the U.S it should be 95 years in the EU as well. One of the arguments for copyright's though that one can agree with is that it encourages more artists to create original works. In terms of it being "corporate welfare" I think that's just another liberal complaint for the most part.
budding I.T professional

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #41 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
One of the arguments for copyright's though that one can agree with is that it encourages more artists to create original works.
That is the reason for copyright that most people, myself included, believe in.

I wonder how many more European artists from the period 1914-1959 will be encouraged to create original works following a change to 95 years this year?

I wonder how many artists in 2009 are thinking "you know, I'd record this song, but it'll only earn me money for 50 years - I can't be bothered. I'd do it for 95 years of royalties, but for 50 years of royalties, it's just not worth it!"


Mind you, I don't need to "wonder" - the USA made this change to copyright the other year - how did it go? Did you find that Elvis has suddenly made more hit records in the early 1950s than previously?

Cheers,
David.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #42 –
Quote
That is the reason for copyright that most people, myself included, believe in.

I wonder how many more European artists from the period 1914-1959 will be encouraged to create original works following a change to 95 years this year?

I wonder how many artists in 2009 are thinking "you know, I'd record this song, but it'll only earn me money for 50 years - I can't be bothered. I'd do it for 95 years of royalties, but for 50 years of royalties, it's just not worth it!"


Mind you, I don't need to "wonder" - the USA made this change to copyright the other year - how did it go? Did you find that Elvis has suddenly made more hit records in the early 1950s than previously?

Cheers,
David.


I decided to do some more research on the Sony Bono Term Extension Act. There was appeal in 2002 in a case called Eldred vs. Ashcroft. The plaintiff Eric Eldred was trying to make it so that copyrighted works be registered with the library of Congress. Ideally placing them in the public domain that you were speaking of. The opinion was given and the plaintiff lost by a 7-2 decision. I guess there were a few strict constructionist on there. Justice Breyer and Stevens were the dissenters bringing up some of the same points that you reiterated.

If anyone is lurking around here from the states and wants to read the decision 

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html

Summarized version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft


The only reason I am not against that extension of this copyright law being extended in the EU is simply, because I feel members of the EU will find a way to push it through if they are being lobbied and it's already 95 years in the U.S as I stated before. Any limits as a long as it's a "limit" is deemed constitutional here in the U.S. I can respect that opinion even if I didn't agree with it. Another interesting point that was brought up in the case above was pro-longed life expectancy for humans. That's another topic in and of itself, but I guess you could argue life expectancies are increasing even if only by a small margin. Who know's maybe artists today will live to see 100! (regardless of how absurd it maybe).
budding I.T professional

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #43 –
Copyright is misinterpreted: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

Quote
"copyright exists to benefit users — those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software — not for the sake of publishers or authors"
"When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal — best for the public, not for the other party in the agreement."
"In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of our money."


And technology changed it's effects: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html
Quote
"copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary reader could do"
"In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power."


Will 95 years of copyright protection boost 40% the production of music? No, more likely 0,01% or less. Is the 50 years of copyright bringing 5 times the artistic production than 10 years? Or only 20% more? Is the prohibition on use of copyrighted songs & other works in just-for-fun videos on youtube giving us more culture and welfare? Is equating someone showing a movie he liked to a friend over the internet, to attacking an ship, good for our society?

We need to rethink that.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #44 –
Quote
In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is usually soon relaxed.
To be fair, in some towns, "stealing cars" is a "popular and useful activity", but the law prohibiting it is not "usually soon relaxed"!

GNU and EFF have the opposing extreme view to HotshotGG's.

I don't buy either extreme. The fair "middle ground" gives something to all parties.

FWIW, if it was my decision, all "artistic" copyrights (writer, lyricist, singer on a record etc) would be 50 years, and all "non-artistic" copyrights (page layout of text, transcription/restoration etc) would be 25 years.

At present some of these are protected for life plus 70, and some of these are not protected at all.

Obviously such a change is not going to happen, but it's a really good middle ground that both gives more to consumers, and adds new business opportunities.

Cheers,
David.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #45 –
Quote
GNU and EFF have the opposing extreme view to HotshotGG's.


The GNU Philosophy is a little bit to extreme for me. I understand where Richard Stallman is coming from (I am supporter of open source software), but not necessarily agree with everything he states. The Electronic Frontier Foundation I despise sometimes. They just seem like a bunch whining technocrats. Every case I read about is usually about them attempting to defend any type of file sharing activities at all costs. They are also for the most part always lobbying to change the DMCA to suite it in their favor. Does the DMCA need to be reformed? yes, but not to suite their extreme viewpoints.

Quote
FWIW, if it was my decision, all "artistic" copyrights (writer, lyricist, singer on a record etc) would be 50 years, and all "non-artistic" copyrights (page layout of text, transcription/restoration etc) would be 25 years.


I would say that that's "fair" enough.

Quote
Obviously such a change is not going to happen, but it's a really good middle ground that both gives more to consumers, and adds new business opportunities.


I respect your opinion on the subject. I am not going to say that I am pro-business, but at the same time I am not really willing to give anything more to the consumer. It just seems like everybody wants "everything" to be in the public domain with internet and new technologies these days.
budding I.T professional

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #46 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote
In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is usually soon relaxed.
To be fair, in some towns, "stealing cars" is a "popular and useful activity", but the law prohibiting it is not "usually soon relaxed"!

I don't think that you can label stealing as an useful thing for society. File sharing and stealling are not comparable things. In one, you alienate the propriety of some one, in the other you MAKE AN COPY, and the original is still perfect.

Of course, the author will not have anymore all the privilegies and rights that we give to them, but that is what we need to limit to reasonable levels. Like Creative Commons, that reserves some rights to the author. What is reasonable, that is open to discussion.

Should JK Rowling have the right to prohibit everyone in the earth to *read* Harry Potter starting today? I think not, but with some types of DRM, this is possible with digital copies in EUA today. Imagine when people stop printing books, give that power?

Quote
. It just seems like everybody wants "everything" to be in the public domain with internet and new technologies these days.

Well, would be the best, except that we may not have hollywood movies and things like that any more. That would be bad. Thus the balance we should seek. I'm putting myself close to one extreme, yes. I surely want things to move away from current trend. I don't think that this is possible only by asking an little thing each time.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #47 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
FWIW, if it was my decision, all "artistic" copyrights (writer, lyricist, singer on a record etc) would be 50 years, and all "non-artistic" copyrights (page layout of text, transcription/restoration etc) would be 25 years.

It was an interesting research on 'optimal' copyright term. The paper is here: http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/pape...yright_term.pdf.

FOREVER MINUS A DAY? THEORY AND EMPIRICS OF OPTIMAL COPYRIGHT TERM
RUFUS POLLOCK
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

Abstract. The optimal term of copyright has been a matter for extensive debate over
the last decade. Based on a novel dynamic approach we derive an explicit formula
which characterises the optimal term as a function of a few key and, (most importantly)
empirically-estimable parameters. Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain
a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term (with a 99% con dence
interval extending up to 38 years). This is substantially shorter than any current copy-
right term and implies that existing terms are too long.

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #48 –
Quote from: rednyrg721 on
. Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain
a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term (with a 99% con dence
interval extending up to 38 years). This is substantially shorter than any current copy-
right term and implies that existing terms are too long.



Well, waddya know?  Just about right where we started (in the US.)

Music copyright to be extended to 95 years in EU

Reply #49 –
...and the UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

(14 years, renewable for another 14)


I can't comment on that paper, other than to point out that they ignored many of the reasons commonly used to justify a reduction in copyright term, since they were significant but unquantifiable - so the 15 year figure they came up with is amazing.

Cheers,
David.