Browse by topic

News

EU commissioner wants to extend copyright to 95 years

18 February 2008 0:58 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 14 comments

Much like songwriter and Congressman Sonny Bono did in the U.S. several years ago, EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is championing an extension to copyright terms. Not surprisingly his stated goal is much the same as Bono's was - to protect artists from the world the rest of us live in where you have to plan for your own retirement.

Mcreevy says "If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late 1950s and 1960s will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years." This is similar to statements from a variety of recording industry insiders when the UK decided not to make such a change to their copyright terms last year.

The thing is, if the reward is actually intended to pay artists the 95 year copyright term doesn't seem to make much sense. Let's assume you write a song when you're 10 years old. In order for a 95 year term to make a difference to you it would require that you live to be 105. Additionally, if that one song (or album) and its royalties are your only source of income you have a lot bigger problems than copyright terms.

On the other hand, if you're a record label that continues to own works long after the artists are gone you're guaranteed to make money on songs for decades.

Permalink to this article | Topic: Lawsuits & Legislation

European Parliament rejects plan to criminalize file-sharing (10 April 2008)

Australia falling in line with music industry talking points (19 February 2008)

Reactions to UK Government decision on copyright term extension (30 July 2007)

UK government rejects extended copyright term (25 July 2007)

Research shows 14 year copyright term optimal (16 July 2007)

US Senators pressure Canada on copyright laws (10 March 2007)

US Copyright Royalty Board rubber stamps recording industry proposed rates (5 March 2007)

« Previous news article
Making sure you're ready for DTV

Next news article »
Toshiba denies it is dropping HD DVD

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
nobrainer (Inactive) 18 February 2008 5:05
So do artists feel that they don't have to pay into a pension scheme like the rest of us then? As the article correctly stated this is the RIAA/IFPI a$$ holes are mealy grabbing as much cash as possible and destroying creativisum unless ppl are prepared to pay the big media companies handfulls of cash. The RIAA/IFPI lobby are destroying culture our by forcing ppl to pay up if they want to build on current works, copywrite has already been pushed too long by thwarting advancement for 50 years now they want to make it a complete generation these big studios need to be ridden from society altogether. a look at copywrite: http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above! The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. How do you stop anti consumer = its easy purchase only second hand media and avoid their propertarian hobbled by DRM hardware! http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18 February 2008 5:06
hughjars (Inactive) 18 February 2008 11:00
It's just more of this King Canute stupidity but this time it's dressed up to look as if it's all about the artists. Maybe EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy might be better served (if the artists welfare is really his concern, yeah right) in ensuring that the publishing and management side of the music & movie biz (and the rest of 'the arts') aren't able to shaft the artist(s) so badly in the first place. I hear all this talk about 'piracy' (when in fact they really mean sharers who are only interested in 'personal use' and who make no profit on someone else's work) but the biggest pirates the artist will ever be likely to encounter are the people in the 'biz' who will leave them with a tiny minority of any earnings & profit generated from their work. [ + quote]
Ntolerant (Inactive) 18 February 2008 17:20
Wellll............I would like to extend my LIFE to 95 but GOD says NOooooooooooooooooo.....................74, maaaaaaybe 76 and you're done. Can't always get what we want. [ + quote]
Nephilim (Moderator) 18 February 2008 18:23
Hopefully Charlie McCreevy goes skiing and sucks a big fat tree like Sonny did. Its called Karma. My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo. The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 "And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 [ + quote]
Blackjax (Member) 19 February 2008 1:32
Too funny Nephilim! Could you possibly say that Sonny was a tree hugger gone wrong? [ + quote]
Nephilim (Moderator) 19 February 2008 10:38
Tree hugger gone right more like it :) [ + quote]
atomicxl (Newbie) 20 February 2008 9:31
How is this money grubbing? Paying people for their work is now money grubbing. Maybe some of you guys live in communist or socialist countries so you are used to this. But to an american, the idea of working hard for no pay off or wage is absurd. Everybody should be allowed to make money of the work of artists except for the artists who did the work? Thats fair?!?! Come on, you sound like a clown when you say stuff like that. Creativity isn't stifled at all. LOL, it forces you to make up your own stuff or if you want to make money using somebody's work, you have to give the owner of that work a cut. Thats not unfair in the least bit. "I hear all this talk about 'piracy' (when in fact they really mean sharers who are only interested in 'personal use' and who make no profit on someone else's work)" You clearly have no clue about what a copyright even is or what personal use. Personal use would be buying music and making a copy for your computer, for mp3 player, burning a copy for your car, shower cd player, or any other device that was going to be used by you. Personal use is not taking music without buying it, then giving it away to hundreds of people so that they don't have to buy it either. If you think thats what personal use means, you're a fool. That doesn't even fit with the definition of the word personal. You mentioned that labels rip off artists... so I guess your logic is that since they already get screwed once, why not screw them again. Many artist get full ownership of their masters and publishing after 10-15 years. Alot of who start indie and can negotiate better deals or pay for recording out of their own pocket retain ownership from the start or far sooner than that. If you guys had your way, they'd lose the ability to make money right as they gained 100% ownership of their work. PS: Even if they shortened copyrights to 20 years, that wouldn't make your bootleg MP3 collection legal all of the sudden. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20 February 2008 9:44
Nephilim (Moderator) 20 February 2008 13:14
*Quote:* You clearly have no clue about what a copyright even is If you've done even cursory research into why original copyright laws were written the way they were you'd realize what a tragically ignorant accusation that is. The overwhelming bulk of advancement is refinement and tweaks to existing ideas. The spirit of original copyright is a balance of benefit for the original creator and society in general. The original creator is guaranteed a profit for their idea for a certain period then society at large is free to build upon that idea for something better. Stifling existing copyright to guarantee profits long past your death is pathetically selfish. [ + quote]
ddp (Moderator) 20 February 2008 13:20
the copyright should last till the originator's death, not 95 yrs. [ + quote]
nobrainer (Inactive) 21 February 2008 13:10
Looks like another country isn't bending over and lubing up for the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI rhetoric to utilise the countries police forces that are already stretched to investigate civil matters. Maybe we stand a chance, of this idiotic idea being introduced in europe at the beset of the media conglomerates. Norwegian Police Deal Massive Blow to MPAA Lawyer *Originally posted by above hyperlink:* Pirate-chasing lawyer Espen T�ndel has been told by the police that they will not spend their valuable resources chasing file-sharers. Undeterred, T�ndel wrote to the Department of Justice demanding a meeting about the police�s decision. They responded all right - and denied him a meeting. Espen Today, Norway appears to be a much safer country for petty file sharers. The Hollywood lawyer Espen T�ndel has been told by Kripos (serious crime police) that they will not be spending time investigating small-time pirates. Like many lawyers in the anti-piracy arena, T�ndel tries to blur civil and criminal law to obtain leverage. The police are clear - their priority is investigating real crimes, such as murder and robbery and sadly for him, file-sharing does not fall into those categories. T�ndel must now make his claims against alleged pirates in a civil court. The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above! The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. How do you stop anti consumer = its easy purchase only second hand media and avoid their propertarian hobbled by DRM hardware! http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21 February 2008 13:12
varnull (Senior Member) 21 February 2008 13:16
More stupidity to stifle creativity and expression.. Copyright has already done much to restrict (unfairly IMHO) in the music and media worlds. Fair enough the originator should be allowed to benefit from the work.. but why should their children continue to receive payments.. or grandchildren or great grandchildren?? They certainly haven't created anything. I dont expect to live off the work of my parents (both long dead).. If they happened to be rich millionaires I would probably be living off them without neding any laws changed. This is nothing to do with the creators.. Again it's about profits for USA failed media businesses. Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work.... Commercial "pay for" software = made by software developers who want paying... see where I'm going with this? [ + quote]
allig8or (Newbie) 22 February 2008 15:35
*Originally posted by atomicxl:* How is this money grubbing? Paying people for their work is now money grubbing. Maybe some of you guys live in communist or socialist countries so you are used to this. But to an american, the idea of working hard for no pay off or wage is absurd. Everybody should be allowed to make money of the work of artists except for the artists who did the work? Thats fair?!?! Come on, you sound like a clown when you say stuff like that. Creativity isn't stifled at all. LOL, it forces you to make up your own stuff or if you want to make money using somebody's work, you have to give the owner of that work a cut. Thats not unfair in the least bit. "I hear all this talk about 'piracy' (when in fact they really mean sharers who are only interested in 'personal use' and who make no profit on someone else's work)" You clearly have no clue about what a copyright even is or what personal use. Personal use would be buying music and making a copy for your computer, for mp3 player, burning a copy for your car, shower cd player, or any other device that was going to be used by you. Personal use is not taking music without buying it, then giving it away to hundreds of people so that they don't have to buy it either. If you think thats what personal use means, you're a fool. That doesn't even fit with the definition of the word personal. You mentioned that labels rip off artists... so I guess your logic is that since they already get screwed once, why not screw them again. Many artist get full ownership of their masters and publishing after 10-15 years. Alot of who start indie and can negotiate better deals or pay for recording out of their own pocket retain ownership from the start or far sooner than that. If you guys had your way, they'd lose the ability to make money right as they gained 100% ownership of their work. PS: Even if they shortened copyrights to 20 years, that wouldn't make your bootleg MP3 collection legal all of the sudden. [ + quote]
allig8or (Newbie) 22 February 2008 16:18
*Originally posted by atomicxl:* How is this money grubbing? Paying people for their work is now money grubbing. Maybe some of you guys live in communist or socialist countries so you are used to this. But to an american, the idea of working hard for no pay off or wage is absurd. Everybody should be allowed to make money of the work of artists except for the artists who did the work? Thats fair?!?! Come on, you sound like a clown when you say stuff like that. Creativity isn't stifled at all. LOL, it forces you to make up your own stuff or if you want to make money using somebody's work, you have to give the owner of that work a cut. Thats not unfair in the least bit. "I hear all this talk about 'piracy' (when in fact they really mean sharers who are only interested in 'personal use' and who make no profit on someone else's work)" You clearly have no clue about what a copyright even is or what personal use. Personal use would be buying music and making a copy for your computer, for mp3 player, burning a copy for your car, shower cd player, or any other device that was going to be used by you. Personal use is not taking music without buying it, then giving it away to hundreds of people so that they don't have to buy it either. If you think thats what personal use means, you're a fool. That doesn't even fit with the definition of the word personal. You mentioned that labels rip off artists... so I guess your logic is that since they already get screwed once, why not screw them again. Many artist get full ownership of their masters and publishing after 10-15 years. Alot of who start indie and can negotiate better deals or pay for recording out of their own pocket retain ownership from the start or far sooner than that. If you guys had your way, they'd lose the ability to make money right as they gained 100% ownership of their work. PS: Even if they shortened copyrights to 20 years, that wouldn't make your bootleg MP3 collection legal all of the sudden. Are you joking, nobody needs anyone else to make them famous or rich and that applies to artists in fact it applies to everyone and every work of art if an artist is good enough then they will do well, if they are not they usually find another life of job just like the rest of us, its just like any other job. I mean how did I ever hear of the "Mona Lisa" it wasn't on television and we were not thought about it in school and it wasn't part of a yougurt advertisment but I still heard about it. When a job in this case maybe a music performance is complete, the royalties and proceeds from concerts and media provided by the artists themselves will determine if they are good enough to make a living from their work. It also stands to reason that everyone now is hooked into whatever the so called "music industry" has to offer, when their are so much better artists out there that are being suppressed by "moneymongers" "laws" that nobody ever heard about and greed, it also means we are being told what to listen to rather than what we want to listen to and now we are told that this needs to be extended to 95 rather than 50 years to keep the "artist/s" in comfort, yeah right. (Look what happened with George Michael) I must ask my boss if he can pay me for the years of work I did after I retire after all I must own the royalties on my designs. Whats going on here is just blatent greed and they should be not just stopped but abolished as they were never needed in the first place. Let the paying customer decide what they want to listen to.. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22 February 2008 16:33
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 9 April 2008 16:38
I do feel that this is a good thing for old artisits. However i do not feel artists that only have one hit wonders should have this allowed. [ + quote]