AfterDawn: Tech news

Copyright terms to be extended to 70 years, in the UK

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 14 Dec 2008 16:44 User comments (27)

Copyright terms to be extended to 70 years, in the UK British Government culture secretary Andy Burnham has recommended that copyright terms for sound recordings should be extended to 70 years, from the current 50 years.
The announcement has brought joy to record labels and UK musicians who had been campaigning for years to have the copyright terms extended. Until recently however, the campaign had fallen on deaf ears.

Burnham added that the new decision should bring “maximum benefit to performers and musicians.”

Horace Trubridge, of the Musicians’ Union, was ecstatic over the decision. “The MU has always argued that term of protection should not run out during a performer’s lifetime, and we would support any proposal that supported this principle and was of direct benefit to performers.”

Feargal Sharkey, CEO of trade organization U.K. Music added: "At this critical time of change, the creative industries have never been more vital to this nation's future prosperity. The announcement regarding term extension is a clear sign that government, like everyone in our industry, is committed to ensuring that U.K. music retains its status as the very best in the world."

Previous Next

Related news

 

27 user comments

114.12.2008 18:00

Just make it forever. That's what it is anyway. Society doesn't seem smart enough to care no matter how unreasonable the duration is.

214.12.2008 19:06

Originally posted by clamUp:
Just make it forever. That's what it is anyway. Society doesn't seem smart enough to care no matter how unreasonable the duration is.
Really, how stupid it is to make copyrights longer and longer

Burnham added that the new decision should bring “maximum benefit to performers and musicians.”

Ermmmmmmmm NO it will only help the music industry NOT the performers or musicians. Lets squeeze every last drop we can from the music already. Idiots

314.12.2008 19:37

Copyright laws in their present form are wrong. I can discover the cure for a various cancer, and it will only be mine for a handful of years. I could invent a time machine and it would be mine for 10-15 years. I could discover any number of inventions, and I would lose all rights to them in a decade. But wait . . . if I record a song or write a book, it is mine for the rest of my life.

How is that fair?

415.12.2008 1:19

It isn't fair, by any stretch of the imagination.
This is what happens when you let trial lawyers run your government. :-(

515.12.2008 12:46

when a new act signs to a label they sign away all rights to their music.

then they spend all that money on drugs and lawyers, then die young.

become a cult figure selling more records after the're dead, and the only people who benefit are record execs, lawyers, and anti piracy organisations

615.12.2008 15:17

Change the nature of copy right, from distribution rights to profit rights.

715.12.2008 16:07
susieqbbb
Inactive

Even if you make it longer the pirates will continue to thrive.

Even if you make it longer more and more copyrights will die.

Then where will you be when the pirates rise.

815.12.2008 16:48

this new measure was introduced after a written protest to parliament from that old closet queen Lady Cliff Richard who is so shrivelled up , some of his/her "music" is actually now more than 50 years old - no doubt (s)he can now continue to shamelssly release his/her once a year crappy christmas exploitation records to his heart's content as the old git will no doubt live to be 150.
actually it wouldn't surprise me if she/he was around at the next turn of milennium to do a space age gay disco version of his/her vomit inspiring milennium prayer drivel.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Dec 2008 @ 16:50

915.12.2008 20:55

Cliff and the rest of those money grabbing shites can "kiss my shiny metal ass" opps sorry bender the checks in the post B)

1016.12.2008 8:30

Actually the real problem is this is what you get when crooks run the country. The problem is there are millions of them waiting in line to get in so if you vote them out you just get more of the same.

Maybe if you burned them all at the stake you could shake things up. Otherwise they will rob the world until there is nothing left or did they already do that?

domie, actually it was the onwer of the Elvis music that put up the bucks. 20 million gets you a billion. That is a good return on your investment.

1116.12.2008 20:35

The nature of CP needs to be changed first off change it to a profit focused setup then allow for infinite "rights" they are sold and traded like any other thing but you have the right to make profit off it and the right to license it and let others make money of it as long as you get a cut.

Content creators get 10% of all profits for their life time.

Free distribution of any kind will be made legitimate only if you have ads and what not paying for bandwidth that is a no no unless you run a non profit organization and then the money you make can be fully scrutinized.

This way we have full free distribution of media and information to the masses which will create new things as well as public domain would and everyone gains something from it.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Dec 2008 @ 20:35

1217.12.2008 4:20

It seems to me that the more you extend copyright, the less relevant the artist becomes over time. How much stuff is sitting on vaults collecting dust never published because the rights holder doesn't think it is good enough for the public to consume.

I remember reading stories about some artists begging the record label to include a specific song in the album. And what happened? That song turned out to be the one song that turned the album into a commercial success.

In the end, what a true artist wants (besides money and fame) is to live forever, to be remembered. Although exceptions can be made, extended copyrights is detrimental to the artist immortality.

1317.12.2008 7:33

hermes_vb, funny you should mention that. There is some great stuff getting released to the public. I surmise a senerio like this may have proceeded the release. The artists had recordings of all their live performances. The best ones were sold to lables and made into live albums. This happened less than 1 a year. 30-40 years later the heirs find the recordings and try to peddle a year for lets say 100 grand. They only get offers for 10 so they release the material to the public.

1417.12.2008 13:00

Originally posted by hermes_vb:
It seems to me that the more you extend copyright, the less relevant the artist becomes over time. How much stuff is sitting on vaults collecting dust never published because the rights holder doesn't think it is good enough for the public to consume.

I remember reading stories about some artists begging the record label to include a specific song in the album. And what happened? That song turned out to be the one song that turned the album into a commercial success.

In the end, what a true artist wants (besides money and fame) is to live forever, to be remembered. Although exceptions can be made, extended copyrights is detrimental to the artist immortality.
True but monopolies and rackets can not be easily removed so you turn it into a profit contract that can not touch free distribution.

1519.12.2008 23:07

Quote:
Originally posted by clamUp:
Just make it forever. That's what it is anyway. Society doesn't seem smart enough to care no matter how unreasonable the duration is.
Really, how stupid it is to make copyrights longer and longer

Burnham added that the new decision should bring “maximum benefit to performers and musicians.”

Ermmmmmmmm NO it will only help the music industry NOT the performers or musicians. Lets squeeze every last drop we can from the music already. Idiots
get your facts straight, when a band writes a song there are TWO copyrights one for the original sheet that belongs to the composer and
one copyright for the recorderd version of the song. The composer own the rights to the sheet, and not the record company. research a bit before you say something like this.

1619.12.2008 23:25

Leningrad

Such things are group based I been thinking if you went to a profit rights based, how would you distribute the wealth properly.

You have the 10% base plus whatever else is paid to sell off the profit rights to a large company to distribute for profit on a world wide scale.

I wonder if a mix of land rights and or stock rights would work each creator is given a percentage of rights based on their work with the content thats created, commissioned work is essentially finishing work by non original creators IE those who are not part of the foundation of the content, they get paid on the fly fixing others original content.

Once you have who gets what setup you still have whats been transacted for the rights left and thats dealt with slightly different unless people want to give up their percentage of the 10% creators are entitled under a profit rights setup(been thinking on how to change copy right IE distribution rights which is antiquated and flawed to profits rights IE you make a profit off it you share a presentage of the profit you get with the rights holders based on whatever licensee contract you took up with them).

Ack..I am drooling again.....

1720.12.2008 1:55

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Leningrad

Such things are group based I been thinking if you went to a profit rights based, how would you distribute the wealth properly.

You have the 10% base plus whatever else is paid to sell off the profit rights to a large company to distribute for profit on a world wide scale.

I wonder if a mix of land rights and or stock rights would work each creator is given a percentage of rights based on their work with the content thats created, commissioned work is essentially finishing work by non original creators IE those who are not part of the foundation of the content, they get paid on the fly fixing others original content.

Once you have who gets what setup you still have whats been transacted for the rights left and thats dealt with slightly different unless people want to give up their percentage of the 10% creators are entitled under a profit rights setup(been thinking on how to change copy right IE distribution rights which is antiquated and flawed to profits rights IE you make a profit off it you share a presentage of the profit you get with the rights holders based on whatever licensee contract you took up with them).

Ack..I am drooling again.....
I have difficulty understanding the majority of what you said, and that analogy that you used apparently does not fit the context.

1820.12.2008 2:02

Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Leningrad

Such things are group based I been thinking if you went to a profit rights based, how would you distribute the wealth properly.

You have the 10% base plus whatever else is paid to sell off the profit rights to a large company to distribute for profit on a world wide scale.

I wonder if a mix of land rights and or stock rights would work each creator is given a percentage of rights based on their work with the content thats created, commissioned work is essentially finishing work by non original creators IE those who are not part of the foundation of the content, they get paid on the fly fixing others original content.

Once you have who gets what setup you still have whats been transacted for the rights left and thats dealt with slightly different unless people want to give up their percentage of the 10% creators are entitled under a profit rights setup(been thinking on how to change copy right IE distribution rights which is antiquated and flawed to profits rights IE you make a profit off it you share a presentage of the profit you get with the rights holders based on whatever licensee contract you took up with them).

Ack..I am drooling again.....
I have difficulty understanding the majority of what you said, and that analogy that you used apparently does not fit the context.
I am drooling about changing the nature of Copy right instead of a distribution focused that pretty much requires the rights holder to police illicit distribution via the courts, change it into a profit based model where the illicit profit is something that can be easily enforced, it will allow for inf rights ownership automatically but they can not control free distribution.

Sorry when zippy droools it pours...*hands you a umbrella and scuba gear, and a non water proof translator* Sorry I can not uarantee the accuracy or the functionality of the translation device...zippy speak is after all sacred gibberish after all.

LOL

1920.12.2008 2:09
varnull
Inactive



2020.12.2008 2:11

Originally posted by varnull:



I'm the red one :P

2120.12.2008 2:55

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Leningrad

Such things are group based I been thinking if you went to a profit rights based, how would you distribute the wealth properly.

You have the 10% base plus whatever else is paid to sell off the profit rights to a large company to distribute for profit on a world wide scale.

I wonder if a mix of land rights and or stock rights would work each creator is given a percentage of rights based on their work with the content thats created, commissioned work is essentially finishing work by non original creators IE those who are not part of the foundation of the content, they get paid on the fly fixing others original content.

Once you have who gets what setup you still have whats been transacted for the rights left and thats dealt with slightly different unless people want to give up their percentage of the 10% creators are entitled under a profit rights setup(been thinking on how to change copy right IE distribution rights which is antiquated and flawed to profits rights IE you make a profit off it you share a presentage of the profit you get with the rights holders based on whatever licensee contract you took up with them).

Ack..I am drooling again.....
I have difficulty understanding the majority of what you said, and that analogy that you used apparently does not fit the context.
I am drooling about changing the nature of Copy right instead of a distribution focused that pretty much requires the rights holder to police illicit distribution via the courts, change it into a profit based model where the illicit profit is something that can be easily enforced, it will allow for inf rights ownership automatically but they can not control free distribution.

Sorry when zippy droools it pours...*hands you a umbrella and scuba gear, and a non water proof translator* Sorry I can not uarantee the accuracy or the functionality of the translation device...zippy speak is after all sacred gibberish after all.

LOL
You dont make sense, in my second last post i was referring to how this positevely affects composers rather than record companies. Now your talking about something beyond my comprehension. Disambiguation perhaps?

2220.12.2008 11:38

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Leningrad

Such things are group based I been thinking if you went to a profit rights based, how would you distribute the wealth properly.

You have the 10% base plus whatever else is paid to sell off the profit rights to a large company to distribute for profit on a world wide scale.

I wonder if a mix of land rights and or stock rights would work each creator is given a percentage of rights based on their work with the content thats created, commissioned work is essentially finishing work by non original creators IE those who are not part of the foundation of the content, they get paid on the fly fixing others original content.

Once you have who gets what setup you still have whats been transacted for the rights left and thats dealt with slightly different unless people want to give up their percentage of the 10% creators are entitled under a profit rights setup(been thinking on how to change copy right IE distribution rights which is antiquated and flawed to profits rights IE you make a profit off it you share a presentage of the profit you get with the rights holders based on whatever licensee contract you took up with them).

Ack..I am drooling again.....
I have difficulty understanding the majority of what you said, and that analogy that you used apparently does not fit the context.
I am drooling about changing the nature of Copy right instead of a distribution focused that pretty much requires the rights holder to police illicit distribution via the courts, change it into a profit based model where the illicit profit is something that can be easily enforced, it will allow for inf rights ownership automatically but they can not control free distribution.

Sorry when zippy droools it pours...*hands you a umbrella and scuba gear, and a non water proof translator* Sorry I can not uarantee the accuracy or the functionality of the translation device...zippy speak is after all sacred gibberish after all.

LOL
You dont make sense, in my second last post i was referring to how this positevely affects composers rather than record companies. Now your talking about something beyond my comprehension. Disambiguation perhaps?
I dunno I like to talk and ramble, I might was going to reply to your post but I went off on a mental bender. ^^

2322.12.2008 7:40

varnull, good one!

I got a better one!
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/31678

The RIAA has finally thrown in the towel! I don't think they were turning a profit on this venture. Apparently, if you were smart enough to hire a good mouth piece you could get off. Dead persons and printers didn't have any money. The efforts spent tracking those 'pirates' down had to be absorbed. I think the juggernot that was to make money or at least be self sustaning was running out of funds.

I am sure they will not roll over and play dead. They will try to come up with something that works. As the article stated, CD sales continue to drop P2P continued to rise.

2410.1.2009 1:06

what is wrong with something like, life plus five or ten years? I'd agree to a minimum but 50 years is a bit much isn't it? styles of music have a very limited length of time and orphans should be allowed to fall out even faster (an orphan is something that was published but is out of print and not allowed to reprint)

book orphans are a great mess since it is hard to find author for permission on something published 50 years ago, I know the song are less likely to have orphans but still I'd say life of artist if no known holder available but this would require a registration process to keep up to date with your address if you want to keep control

and if you have such a system then the orphan could easily cut even sooner since the artist/author would be registered to get their cut from royalties

2512.1.2009 9:25

qazwiz, 5 years is more in perspective with patent laws. Patents in the US expire in 17 years. They required much more effort and funds than a copywright which is only an idea. Some patents require hundreds of millions of dollars to develope.

Artists would need to get off their asses and perform to make a buck. Right now fans are punished with the likes of Robert Plant. He is too good to think of the fans that made him rich and famous. I hope no one ever buys another one of his albums or sees another one of his shows. I have written him off.

I think the 100 years is bad for the music industry.

2612.1.2009 10:26

Originally posted by Mez:
qazwiz, 5 years is more in perspective with patent laws. Patents in the US expire in 17 years. They required much more effort and funds than a copywright which is only an idea. Some patents require hundreds of millions of dollars to develope.

Artists would need to get off their asses and perform to make a buck. Right now fans are punished with the likes of Robert Plant. He is too good to think of the fans that made him rich and famous. I hope no one ever buys another one of his albums or sees another one of his shows. I have written him off.

I think the 100 years is bad for the music industry.

Most artists already do, as touring is still the only way to make money for 80% of music artists.

The other 20% or so can make it off CD sales and other things.

2714.1.2009 17:34

Originally posted by Mez:
qazwiz, 5 years is more in perspective with patent laws. Patents in the US expire in 17 years. They required much more effort and funds than a copywright which is only an idea. Some patents require hundreds of millions of dollars to develope.

Artists would need to get off their asses and perform to make a buck. Right now fans are punished with the likes of Robert Plant. He is too good to think of the fans that made him rich and famous. I hope no one ever buys another one of his albums or sees another one of his shows. I have written him off.

I think the 100 years is bad for the music industry.
exactly my point.. patents are for hardware, the CD player you use has patents the most recent of which is less than 17 years old (patent life) patents can be extended if it is worth the effort, but usually the innovation has evolved to make the item obsolete

the copyright process use to allow for renewals that could be done if the property was worth renewing but the "volgon book of poetry" (a HG2tU reference) type of books wouldn't bother because there is no market so not worth the fee

Thus, while Mr. Adams would want to renew the copyright on "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Universe".... the book of poems that he describes as "the third worst in the known Universe" would not since no one wants them

I'd rather have the 30's - 40's song "Marzey Dotes and Dozey Dotes" than virtually anything that is being cranked out these days which is the argument they use for the longer period. but why do they need to make it automatic "!00 years" or whatever?

why not return to the old way (here in the USA at least) of allowing a good length of time and then requiring occasional renewal.

this way orphans will be able fall from system while sustainable songs can be renewed

where the system is supposed to enrich the artist that made the song the system steals copyright by virtue of a catch 22, sign away your rights and we will make you a star but don't sign and we will bury you in obscurity

NIN has proved that you don't need a recording contract anymore.... they made about 1.5 million the first week that they gave away the first album... and the other two could be had for a flat $5 to download or get the 3 cd set mailed to you for just $10. so how did NIN make so much? they also offered signed sets and ultra limited sets ($75 - $300 per set) the limited edition $300 sets are all sold out but the $75 sets are still available and I bet will be as long as all artists are still alive (the $75 sets are signed but not a limited edition so if they sell out they can just sign some more)

as I implied earlier, I don't like NIN or their music but I still seeded their p2p release until I had to reimage the disk. I was over 40 copies that I had seeded last time I had checked so probably I transmitted the file 50 or more times before the file got wiped. ALSO it Downloaded to me faster than I've seen any file Download (it was the first time I had seen a 1MBps download from just one file) because there were hundreds of people seeding that file and I had set my client to accept tens of dozens of them... half a dozen of which sent at well over 100KB/s

so, in conclusion.... I'm for anything that will help (and thus encourage) the artist to be productive.... but 100 year copyright ain't gonna do it as long as the record producers

how about 10 years, successively renewable at 2 years less than the previous renewal. that would give 60 years for those that renew.

also how about 20 years renewable an indefinite number of times... BUT ONLY RENEWABLE BY THE ORIGINAL ARTIST (when he dies no more renewals) the recording industry would get them to give them the first 20 years but the renewal allows the artist to sell again or retain as their desire and circumstance permits... keeping the record companies from excessive profiting on the success of their slaves

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive