RSSBritain Refuses to Extend Music Copyrights
By the Betanews Staff | Published July 25, 2007, 2:52 PM
The British government Tuesday refused to endorse an effort to change the copyrights on sound recordings to last at least 70 years, a move that has critics claiming the UK isn't supporting their artists. Currently, individuals can receive royalties for 50 years after the date a song was released.
United States artists receive copyright protection for 95 years, while Australian law dictates 70 years. The British government would have had to convince the European Union Commission to increase copyright expiration, but it said such a change would not benefit most artists and would incur additional costs. Representatives from British music industry groups said they would continue to push the EU directly on the issue.
The UK is to be congratulated for not giving in to industry pressure to further extend the Copyright term! Now to get the USA to *roll back* its last extension or two...
Score: 0
|seventy years ?!
I expect to be dead well belong then and if it affected me, I don't think I would / could care.
Do John Lennon, George Harrison etc etc care?
Score: 0
|This article misses a key point in the UK argument: Under UK law, while the singer/player loses copyright after 50 years, the song writer gets royalties for the rest of their life plus 70 years. The trick here is to write and perform your own material.
Another side of the argument over royalties is this: They offer the recording artist a payback over time that evens up the score with the manager. For example, 1980s teen band S Club 7 earned around £600,000 each from their music, while their manager earned himself £50 million.
Score: 0
|I can't imagine the majority of music released today still being played in 50 years. There's still some great bands out there, don't get me wrong, but nothing like there used to be. The current music scene just doesn't encourage that kind of risk taking any more.
25 years seems adequate. Are you really going to be pulling in much money from a song written today in 2032, let alone 2057?
Score: 0
|Lower it to 25 years, that's long enough for the music company's to earn money out of it before giving it to the people.
Score: 0
|Believe it or not, sometimes it takes 25 years for people to be discovered. How would someone like John Lee Hooker, brought to light by the Rolling Stones in the 60's, have fared under your proposal?
Score: 0
|I'd love to see the first "open source" country announce 0 years! Maybe France will lead the way; they've already kicked all things Microsoft to the curb.
Score: 0
|alas, with Sarkozy and his puppets, there's no way such a thing would happen now.
Sarkozy likes the american model a lot, and would really like to apply it to France.
Score: 0
|I personally think not bringing this in is a good thing as it means music can evolve quicker.
Samples can be used from older works to create new and interesting things.
Score: 0
|That's great if you're a no-talent rapper, otherwise not much help. That's why people listen to popular music in the first place, someone has done something interesting and different with the same 13 notes.
Score: 0
|