| Author |
Topic: Aging Rockers Set to Lose Copyright Protection |
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 1 Dec 2006 7:24 pm |
|
Pretty soon we can all do free covers of hits from the 60's. Good idea or bad?
Do the Clicky Thing Right Here [This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 01 December 2006 at 07:25 PM.] |
|
|
 |
Andy Sandoval
From:
Bakersfield, California, USA
|
Posted 1 Dec 2006 8:39 pm
|
|
| I think it's a good idea. [This message was edited by Andy Sandoval on 01 December 2006 at 08:46 PM.] |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 1 Dec 2006 8:51 pm
|
|
| Good idea. Engineers and other inventors would be thrilled with 50-year patent protection. Think of the boon to pharmaceuticals, who could get 50-year monopoly protection for their drugs, and bring the generic drug industry to its knees. 95 years? Why? |
|
|
|
Chris LeDrew
From:
Canada
|
Posted 1 Dec 2006 9:23 pm
|
|
I wonder what it would be like to have a Picasso in my living room? Maybe art that's over 50 years old should be public domain as well. One could simply apply at a museum for temporary ownership and wait in line for a chance to own a Van Gogh or a Monet for a set period of time. While you have it, do off a few hundred high-quality prints and make a few bucks selling them. Why come up with anything original when talented people are providing great songs and timeless art? Another good idea would be to make prints of Robert Frank photos and publish a book, making a nice profit off the back of this gifted artist.
As a songwriter myself, who relies on royalties as part of my annual income, I think it's despicable that in a few years anybody may be able to record Beatles or Stones songs on a CD and make a profit without having to pay anybody anything. Nothing short of robbery, in my opinion. Why should just anybody be able to make a buck off these songs? Ridiculous, and typical of the cheapening attitude towards the importance of art and artists in our society.
I am appalled to think that, if I ever scored a hit, in 50 years my elderly son and his family would stop receiving the royalties for this song and it would become fair game for any talentless leech to mine. This doesn't sit well with me.
Ever hear of "old money" families? Well, there wouldn't be many of them around if these rules applied to all facets of society.
Songs are INTELLECTUAL ART, much like a painting or a photograph. Too bad that notion is sometimes lost on those who aren't affected by the potential loss of it.[This message was edited by Chris LeDrew on 02 December 2006 at 07:48 AM.] |
|
|
|
Jerry Hayes
From:
Virginia Beach, Va.
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 7:44 am
|
|
Chris, the only thing I can think of to say about your post is a big "AMEN".......JH in Va.
------------------
Don't matter who's in Austin (or anywhere else) Ralph Mooney is still the king!!!
|
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 7:50 am
|
|
Whoa! Easy!
I believe (but I'm not positive) that the rejected proposed extension of copyright protection of which the article speaks:
A) only applies to sound recordings and not to the work itself [therefore, copyright protection for the owner of the sound recording would expire, but (supposedly) copyright protection of the work itself (the song) would remain in tact]; and
B) only applies to copyrights registered in the UK and only applies to geographical regions for which UK law has jurisdiction.[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 02 December 2006 at 07:51 AM.] |
|
|
|
Chris LeDrew
From:
Canada
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 8:07 am
|
|
There are dire implications even to a sound recording being made public domain. Royalties would be impossible to collect in the barrage of abuse that would follow.
I'm aware that the laws are different in North America, but I was talking in principle. The 50 years law is ridiculous, just like an expiry date on a gift certificate. Why would there be a time when something just ceases to be your property? Maybe this should be done with real estate as well. I do not mean to be alarmist here, but art is sometimes the only thing an artist owns. To have a law that eventually takes this ownership away is an archaic, non-sensical, outmoded law that's not at all in line with today's thinking. We have it a little better over here, with the 95-year law. But it's still a bit ludicrous that there's an expiry date on ownership of a song. I feel that royalties should be collected by the descendants of the writer for as long as the song is out there earning cash. |
|
|
|
Michael Johnstone
From:
Sylmar,Ca. USA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 8:07 am
|
|
| In other words you could sample an original Beatles record with impunity but you'd still have to pay songwriters royalties if you used the sample for profit? |
|
|
|
Chris L. Christensen
From:
Los Angeles, California, USA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 8:17 am
|
|
| When the original copyright laws were set up in the United States around the time of the Constitution, etc., the length of time specified was only 14 years or thereabouts and it has been extended several times since. The idea at the time seemed to be that this limit would stimulate creativity and make room for new ideas. This seems reasonably enough but on the other hand if something sticks and remains popular than the problem of the living inventor/creator losing control of and not profiting from his original idea remains. Disney and several other old companies and representatives of long dead composers, George Gershwin for one, hired the most expensive lawyers they could find to fight for an extension of the copyright law and probably will do it again in about 15 years when the copyrights are set to expire again. Personally, I think there should be a limit, given all the money those companies and indiviguals, or the descendents of them rather, have made, and of course that's always the bottom line, the bucks. Like most anything else it boils down to greed. |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 8:44 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why would there be a time when something just ceases to be your property? |
I'm not sure about this, but I believe one answer to this question stems from the fact that intellectual property (i.e., inventions, trademarks, copyrights, etc.) are intangible. The only reason intangible property exists is because the government says it does. That is, without government recognition, management, and protection of intellectual property, there would be no intellectual property. So, because of this, there needs to be a trade-off or sort of quid pro quo between the government (society) and the intellectual property owner.
The quid pro quo boils down to:
the government provides for, and protects, intellectual property interests in return for a limited term of ownership.
[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 02 December 2006 at 08:49 AM.] |
|
|
|
Chris LeDrew
From:
Canada
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 8:45 am
|
|
Chris, would that be greed on the part of the composer/publisher who owns the song, or those who want to profit from something to which they have never contributed one brain cell?
Tom, don't forget that there's millions generated in taxes from royalties every year. So the gov't is not exactly doing us a favour out of the goodness of their hearts. I have to claim my royalties on my taxes annually. [This message was edited by Chris LeDrew on 02 December 2006 at 08:50 AM.] |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
|
|
|
Richard Sevigny
From:
Salmon Arm, BC, Canada
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 10:01 am
|
|
Doesn't much matter as the cards are currently stacked against the songwriter anyway. As copyright law now stands, the dude(tte) who writes the song is a contractor for the company who publishes. The song is considered a "work for hire".
If I write a song now, I won't be around in fifty years to collect any income from it anyway. I don't see why the record company should own it in perpetuity either. They should have to work for their dough as well. I say keep it as it is. |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 10:44 am
|
|
| I think it should be 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is longer. |
|
|
|
Chris LeDrew
From:
Canada
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 11:03 am
|
|
| Bobby, when a man dies should his work pension be automatically taken away from his wife? |
|
|
|
Andy Sandoval
From:
Bakersfield, California, USA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 12:04 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years. |
Sounds like a good deal to me, is this only in European countries or do we do it here
too?
| Quote: |
| Pretty soon we can all do free covers of hits from the 60's. Good idea or bad? |
And how does all this effect a band doing covers?, I couldn't find anything in the article that addressed this.[This message was edited by Andy Sandoval on 02 December 2006 at 12:18 PM.] |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 12:19 pm
|
|
b0b wrote:
| Quote: |
| I think it should be 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is longer |
"Life of the author" terms can hurt the author while he is still alive. For example it makes the rights less valuable if he sells them. Also, it can provide an incentive for unscrupulous businessmen to hasten the death of the author.
I would propose 20 years always. |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 1:53 pm
|
|
If you think this is a tough problem, there are people taking out patents on the DNA sequences in each of our bodies, for use in genetic medicine. Some of those sequences are common to all of us, others are unique to one or a few individuals. Doesn't matter. People are getting patents on all of them. If for medical reasons you needed to make extra copies of one of your own genes, or to alter a flawed gene by some minor change in the sequence, you'd have to pay the guy that has the patent. It boggles the mind.  |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 2:19 pm
|
|
The kind of problem David points out is the inevitable result of crazy patent and copyright law, IMO. I think the whole system needs to be seriously overhauled.
There is a notion of "inevitability" in discoveries, both creative and scientific. Further, all creative people build off the discoveries and creations of others, many of whom are not credited or rewarded. Why so much reward for the "one that got there first"?
On the notion of "taking away someones retirement", what makes anybody think they have a "right" to live forever off the contribution developed over a short period of time?
Of course, we've beat this topic into the ground in past threads. No point in stopping now, I guess.  |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 2 Dec 2006 9:12 pm
|
|
From an earlier post re: royalties,
If you're from Europe you can download this petition and send it to your local MEP.
Si vous êtes de l'Europe vous pouvez télécharger cette pétition et l'envoyer à votre MPE local.
Als u van Europa bent kunt u dit verzoek downloaden en het naar uw lokaal lid van het Europese Parlement verzenden.
Om du är från Europa, kan du nedladda denna begäran och överföra den till din lokalMEP.
Si usted es de Europa usted puede descargar esta petición y enviarla a su MEP local.
|
|
|
|
John McGann
From:
Boston, Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 3 Dec 2006 5:59 am
|
|
Let's say you are lucky enough to be able to buy a home in your 20's. Should you lose ownership of it because you live into your '70's, or do you have a right to leave something behind for your family?
Let's say you are lucky enough to write a big hit song in your 20's. Should you lose the royalty income in your 70's when you need it most (because you probably aren't drawing audiences like Mick Jagger anymore)?
Copyright ownership is pretty important property if you are a writer or happen to be related to a writer. [This message was edited by John McGann on 03 December 2006 at 06:01 AM.] |
|
|
|
John Cisco
From:
Alexandria Virginia, USA
|
Posted 3 Dec 2006 7:53 am
|
|
| There is an overlying principle here that is a little scary. McDonald's is right now trying to get the "rights" to the concept of the sandwich. Meaning if they are successful they can sue anyone making sandwiches. The same applies for music. Did you know you can be sued for playing Happy Birthday in a club? Or singing it in public? It is owned. Once the enormous spectacle of profits showed up for popular recordings aka Bing Crosby selling a gazillion copies of White Christmas the sharks came in. Yes you wrote a song. A good song. Does this mean for eternity you and your family will profit from it's existance? Is it so thrilling and unique that no one else should should play or sing it without your permission? For a hunfred years? Oh by the way the bridge on your song sounds a lot like the Ronettes. |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 3 Dec 2006 9:26 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Let's say you are lucky enough to be able to buy a home in your 20's. Should you lose ownership of it because you live into your '70's, or do you have a right to leave something behind for your family? |
"Real" property is different than "intellectual" property. Nobody is talking about taking the real property away that a writer/musician acquires from the 50 years they have government-enforced monopoly protection of total control of their intellectual property. But at some point, I think that monopoly protection should end. Nobody is saying that they can't continue to market their material - but that others can do so also.
IMO, even 50 years is too long. I have always thought that copyright and patent protection should be handled similarly. The basic concept of intellectual "property" is that new ideas are entirely "original". All creators borrow from others. Why are creators influences not recompensed? How long should someone be able to have government-enforced monopoly control of something they created, using the ideas of others in its creation? These are all tradeoffs. It's definitely not as black and white as "real property", which is also not absolutely black and white.
| Quote: |
| Does this mean for eternity you and your family will profit from it's existance? |
I'm fine with them continuing to profit from it. I just don't accept the idea that they deserve an in-perpetuity right to government protection for a monopoly to completely control and profit from it. At a certain point, creations lose their novelty and become part of the cultural landscape, and should fall into the public domain, where anybody can then use the ideas and make new creations from them. The only argument is about how long is "fair". The point of copyright and patent, I believe, is to give creators an incentive to create. I don't see how completely institutionalizing monopoly control, essentially in perpetuity, achieves this goal.
All IMO, of course.[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 03 December 2006 at 09:26 AM.] |
|
|
|
John McGann
From:
Boston, Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 3 Dec 2006 2:32 pm
|
|
Well, as the hippies would say, "music belongs to everybody, man!"...so you shouldn't have a problem with people bootlegging your performances and/or songs either, right, man?  whether or not 'the government' has anything to do with it...[This message was edited by John McGann on 03 December 2006 at 02:33 PM.] |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 3 Dec 2006 4:17 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| You shouldn't have a problem with people bootlegging your performances and/or songs either, right, man? |
Oh, wow, man. Y'know, if you're taking the right pharmaceuticals, you won't have any problems at all, with this or anything else. It's only when you come down that it's, like, such a bummer, man. |
|
|
|
