The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Copyright term extended from 50 to 70 years. Modular Synthesizers
Old 12th September 2011
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
Copyright term extended from 50 to 70 years.

The copyright term for performers and record companies has been extended from 50 to 70 years.

PPL : Copyright term successfully extended
Old 12th September 2011
  #2
Yeah, people are living longer and music from 50+ years ago is still relevant.
Old 13th September 2011
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
What percentage of artists is actually going to be helped with this, as opposed to leeching family members, or "estates" and companies who simply acquired the rights but never actually created anything?

If you weren't making anything the first 50 years, 20 more of making nothing aren't going to help. If you signed away your rights, no amount of extension is going help you, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yeah, people are living longer
Not necessarily; low averages are mostly because of infant mortality.
Old 13th September 2011
  #4
if the law was not changed, we're a year away from the Beatles catalog starting to revert to the public domain... expect another extension in 20 years...
Old 14th September 2011
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
What percentage of artists is actually going to be helped with this, as opposed to leeching family members, or "estates"
Why the ultra negative description?

I think some of the strongest advocates for this change were early UK rockers including Cliff Richard.
Musicians and songwriters dude.
Old 14th September 2011
  #6
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Why the ultra negative description?
In 20 years the same crap will simply happen again. I think this was originally suggested by Charlie McCreevy.

Every time this happens it's claimed that it's for "those poor artists". Estates not doing anything aren't poor artists. Corporations buying up the copyrights aren't poor artists. Both try to ride on the bandwagon of the original songwriter's creative work.

If they are the benefactors of term extensions like this because those songwriters sold their rights, then the argument that it's "for the artists!" is bull****, and you should call it what it is; government handouts for corporate welfare queens.

Want to support those aging rockers? Leave the terms at what they are and pay those composers a retirement wage directly if they're not making enough to get by like Cliff Richard. If they're still writing or performing, allow them to earn that money on the side without cutting the retirement wage. There's funding for the arts; funnel that cash to those people, as they've already proven their worth.

It's cheaper, and the money is far more likely to end up with the people who actually deserve it, in full, instead of trickling down through a dozen "rights" organisations who are all going to take a little cut, or who will withhold the funds until they've accumulated enough to warrant a payout, or who will perform mathematical gymnastics to avoid payout until the Sun goes nova.
Old 14th September 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 
lagavulin16's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
if the law was not changed, we're a year away from the Beatles catalog starting to revert to the public domain... expect another extension in 20 years...
So how long should we have to wait for it to go into the public domain?
Old 14th September 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
To oversimplify this.. 99.9 % of musicians or composers don't benefit from that. But 100% of the 'gatekeepers' do. If they want to change laws in a way as to completely pervert the reason these laws were made in the first place they always lie about why they want new laws.
There is no "free enterprise" or "free market" as the powers that be and the forces behind them that bribe them make sure they protect their 'business".

Anybody remember what Disney did when the copyright to their mouse got old? Exactly. Again and again.

'The law' is an anagram of 'wealth'.
Old 14th September 2011
  #9
Gear Maniac
 
johnnygri's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
Want to support those aging rockers? Leave the terms at what they are and pay those composers a retirement wage directly if they're not making enough to get by like Cliff Richard. If they're still writing or performing, allow them to earn that money on the side without cutting the retirement wage. There's funding for the arts; funnel that cash to those people, as they've already proven their worth.
Devil's advocate here, but: can that argument exist at the same time as defending paying for music and being against piracy? When you reduce it, does it simply boil down to being for or against paying the artist the money they are due for something they created?
Old 14th September 2011
  #10
Gear Addict
 
tarnationsauce's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnygri View Post
Devil's advocate here, but: can that argument exist at the same time as defending paying for music and being against piracy? When you reduce it, does it simply boil down to being for or against paying the artist the money they are due for something they created?
There is a big difference.
The music that was copywritten 50 years ago was created with the record companies, artists, ect knowing the terms of the copyright.
Piracy is stealing.

BTW If they want to extend how long a copyright is good for they should start it now, not retroactively.
Old 14th September 2011
  #11
Gear Maniac
 
johnnygri's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarnationsauce View Post
There is a big difference.
But of course! You need to boil down further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarnationsauce View Post
The music that was copywritten 50 years ago was created with the record companies, artists, ect knowing the terms of the copyright.
I'm sure that's not the only reason they decided to dive in and get writing/performing though is it.

Defining copyright terms/law/etc - beyond the remit and authority of your average artist isn't it?
Old 14th September 2011
  #12
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnygri View Post
Devil's advocate here, but: can that argument exist at the same time as defending paying for music and being against piracy?
As you say: it all boils down to money. But money is a means to continuity: if I can earn a living with music I can spend all my time on making music.

If you want to make sure the money ends up in the hands of the people who deserve it, then paying them directly is the better (and cheaper) option. Buying the rights to a catalog does not create new art and does not contribute to cultural value; it's a bargaining chip that's supposed to be milked for as long as possible.

People are not unwilling to pay for music. Any digital music store would simply not work if that was the case; it's not a matter of ignorance about other methods not having caught up yet. However, people are aware of the parable of the ant and the grasshopper.

Now you have to sell them the idea that someone didn't build up a retirement fund and who had their time in the limelight 50 years ago deserves even more, all the while coasting on that work done previously, and the biggest cheerleaders are a bunch of organisations which have done their best to make themselves as vile and despised as possible.

How are you going to do that?
Old 14th September 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
So how long should we have to wait for it to go into the public domain?
I'd say at least 50 years after all the original authors are dead. But look at Disney, Mickey Mouse is not going into the public domain, maybe ever.

Keep in mind the copyright protects individuals as much as it does companies. This is not a "corporate" issue versus artists.

If the Beatles catalog goes public domain it's not like it suddenly benefits the band and their estates versus EMI... It benefits none of them.


Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 15th September 2011
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
To oversimplify this.. 99.9 % of musicians or composers don't benefit from that. But 100% of the 'gatekeepers' do.
Errr....... proof????????
Old 15th September 2011
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
Now you have to sell them the idea that someone didn't build up a retirement fund and who had their time in the limelight 50 years ago deserves even more, all the while coasting on that work done previously, and the biggest cheerleaders are a bunch of organisations which have done their best to make themselves as vile and despised as possible.
1) I don't see how an extension of copyright harms any young creative minds.
Do 20 something's really want to sample Cliff Richard and The Shadows?

2) People like Cliff Richard still tour, employing hundreds of crew as well as side musicians. Saying music copyright is all about a retirement fund is a negative simplification.
Old 15th September 2011
  #16
Mickey Mouse is not a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue. This one of those things that most folks don't understand but still throw around in these arguments. A trademark is perpetual as long as the company that trademarked it is still active and protecting it's trademark, AFAIK anyway. The character is trademarked, the works in which the character is portrayed are copyrighted. It's only those works that are subject to copyright, and it was those works that were protected for a longer term when the period was extended.

As to the artists getting paid, if artists fight to retain copyright of their works, then they are the ones who will get paid. If they sell that copyright, then that's their decision. As to leaching families, I don't get that at all. Why it is that every other type of profession in the world gets to leave the benefits of their work to their children without people bitching about it, but when it's someone who works in intellectual property it's somehow some elitist thing? If I pass on to my children my stock holdings in a company, why aren't you complaining about that? Or if I let my son take over the company I built before he was even born? What is it that it's always only the IP industry that gets dinged for these things?

As to why people from 50 years ago 'deserve more', if their stuff is still of value to enough people, then they deserve the fruits of what they created. Why should Steve Jobs still have hundreds of millions of dollars for something he did now almost 40 years ago, which allowed him to own a big chunk of Apple and continue to profit massively from it? Thousands of other people work as hard as him at Apple, but they don't benefit like that. Why is it that suddenly people get all Che when it comes to the music business, but then often turn around treat Steve Jobs like some sort hero of the people?
Old 16th September 2011
  #17
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
chrisso, try this: Cost of Europe's 20-year copyright extension? €1 billion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
What is it that it's always only the IP industry that gets dinged for these things?
Because it's not exactly promoting the progress of Science and the useful Arts, and the duration isn't exactly Limited Times anymore - if it takes over a lifetime for it to end up in the public domain, if ever.

In 20 years, no matter how many of these artists are dead, buried, or on life-support, the entire shpiel will play out again. This happens with disturbing clockwork regularity.

Why aren't we paying the estates of Bach and Mozart their deserved millions? Their family has the rights to the fruit of their work. Their music is a zillion times more relevant than that of these musicians and writers, who would most likely not even make it if it weren't for Johann and Amadeus. It still gets played and performed and poor little Junior Bach is not receiving a cent.

We don't because they're dead? Great, so why do we keep paying money to the family of artists?

We don't because it was "too long ago"? Both 4 centuries and 50 years are entirely arbitrary timespans - after all, Bach's music is still performed, so it's still relevant. Far moreso than any work created in the 60s, I'd wager.

Where would you be without Bach? Or any of the other classics that conveniently dropped dead long enough ago for us to liberally borrow from their work, but to lock it up for our own purposes? Why isn't Disney paying Grimm and Perrault?

Quote:
Why is it that suddenly people get all Che when it comes to the music business, but then often turn around treat Steve Jobs like some sort hero of the people?
Because that would require workers to own means of production and that idea is successfully stamped out already.

You know, it doesn't even matter. Don't waste your breath on it. Think of it purely in terms of public relations.

The industry is trying to sell this narrative to the people (who've got an economic crisis hanging above their heads or who are out of a job) who hear "rockstars" - already shown by the industry's narrative as indiscriminately showered with money and living in giant houses - asking more, more, more.

Is it that inconceivable that the general audience will not have a shred of mercy?
Old 16th September 2011
  #18
Sigh... Why do I bother?

Quote:
Because it's not exactly promoting the progress of Science and the useful Arts, and the duration isn't exactly Limited Times anymore - if it takes over a lifetime for it to end up in the public domain, if ever.
You know perfectly well that these products have ZERO to do with promoting the arts and sciences. They are commercial productions made for the sole purpose of creating a recording industry. They aren't *art*, and the only reason anyone whines about the copyright period is so that they can get them for free, not because they are comparable to works of great social value.

And we all know perfectly well that the stuff that is being stolen far and away is stuff that would be under copyright even if it was only 20 years, and so this whole argument is just silly.

Quote:
In 20 years, no matter how many of these artists are dead, buried, or on life-support, the entire shpiel will play out again. This happens with disturbing clockwork regularity.
It's easy to claim whatever you want to support your position, even if you have no proof of it whatsoever.

Quote:
Why aren't we paying the estates of Bach and Mozart their deserved millions? Their family has the rights to the fruit of their work.

We don't because they're dead? Great, so why do we keep paying money to the family of artists?
Well, most artists back then were doing their work on a piecework basis, paid by some patron who paid for the work. So they never would have owned their work in the sense that an artist today might. They weren't making music to sell as music, because that market didn't really exist. So you can't use them as any sort of argument for the situation today. Try to go to some rich person today and ask him to pay you a $100,000 to write a song about how glorious he is. We live in different times, where the sales of the actual music has to provide the income.

Quote:
Because that would require workers to own means of production and that idea is successfully stamped out already.
But none of those 'workers' created the company. You completely missed the point. The reason Steve Jobs has the money and they don't, is because he took the risk and they didn't. Just as the people who created the music took the risk, not the consumer.
Old 16th September 2011
  #19
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
It's easy to claim whatever you want to support your position, even if you have no proof of it whatsoever.


Quote:
We live in different times, where the sales of the actual music has to provide the income.
But we also live in different times where the music doesn't cost a cent or a year anymore to distribute, and where the principle of it not being allowed or delayed in a certain region is utterly ridiculous because hey, internet.
Old 16th September 2011
  #20
The cost of distribution never had that much to do with the cost of the product, in terms of the people who make the music. They weren't getting the price you saw at the brick and mortar store. The cost is the making of it, and the cost of 8 to 9 out of 10 acts that are invested in not going anywhere, since that's just the nature of the business.

As to your graph, that's not proof of what's to come, only proof of what has already come, so it's kind of silly to put it forward as proof.
Old 16th September 2011
  #21
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
As to your graph, that's not proof of what's to come, only proof of what has already come, so it's kind of silly to put it forward as proof.
You are arguing semantics by requiring the word proof to mean infallible.

Proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Its a 200+ year trend.

Are you a creationist?
Old 16th September 2011
  #22
It's something that's happened 5 times in 200+ years. There's no guarantee at all that it will happen again. It's not like inflation which almost guarantees that prices and wages will continue upwards over time. It's something set by law, to try to achieve some meaningful balance of promoting creation and interests of consumers. At some point it doesn't need to be, and probably won't be, extended anymore. It has been extended over the last 200 years, at least substantially, because it's caught up with the modern concept of intellectual property based industry, which wasn't anything like what it is now when the original provisions were created. Only if you assume cynically that lawmakers are just being purchased and will continue to be purchased indefinitely could you argue that it will continue to be expanded indefinitely.
Old 16th September 2011
  #23
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

So those against the change, let me ask you:
How EXACTLY will this impact you directly?

It won't.

If you're pissed that you can't "sample" someone's revelant work and pass it off on your own, tough cookies.. learn to actually make something that you created, or pay the price to play.

These kinds of things don't "stifle" innovation... they actually encourage innovation. Think about it..
You need to come up with something new (key word NEW), as you can't just pass off someone else's work as your own. Or are the generations getting lazier and lazier these days?
Old 16th September 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 
lagavulin16's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo View Post
I'd say at least 50 years after all the original authors are dead. But look at Disney, Mickey Mouse is not going into the public domain, maybe ever.

Keep in mind the copyright protects individuals as much as it does companies. This is not a "corporate" issue versus artists.

If the Beatles catalog goes public domain it's not like it suddenly benefits the band and their estates versus EMI... It benefits none of them.


Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Their music going into the public domain would benefit everyone except for them.

Why should we even have a public domain if we just keep extending it like this?
Old 16th September 2011
  #25
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
It's something that's happened 5 times in 200+ years. There's no guarantee at all that it will happen again. It's not like inflation which almost guarantees that prices and wages will continue upwards over time. It's something set by law, to try to achieve some meaningful balance of promoting creation and interests of consumers. At some point it doesn't need to be, and probably won't be, extended anymore. It has been extended over the last 200 years, at least substantially, because it's caught up with the modern concept of intellectual property based industry, which wasn't anything like what it is now when the original provisions were created. Only if you assume cynically that lawmakers are just being purchased and will continue to be purchased indefinitely could you argue that it will continue to be expanded indefinitely.
My bet is that at some point they will work corporate personhood into the equation. As a corporation cannot die, neither will the copyright expire.

I expect that The Beatles will be protected until there isn't a dime to draw from their work.
Old 16th September 2011
  #26
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
To oversimplify this.. 99.9 % of musicians or composers don't benefit from that. But 100% of the 'gatekeepers' do. ..
Actually it's the opposite situation because by that time copyright ownership will have reverted back to the performers and composers.

Investment bankers want everything to be in the public domain so distributors don't need to pay those pesky creative types.
Old 16th September 2011
  #27
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Mickey Mouse is not a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue. This one of those things that most folks don't understand but still throw around in these arguments.
The reason Mickey Mouse/Disney is still thrown around is not exactly because they envy the mouse, but because Disney used it's muscle to bribe and warp the legal system. Many people think that's not the way "the law" is supposed to be.
Regarding my hero Bob Olhsson he's right but I still don't see how -within the current system- we would get the gatekeepers out of the equation.
Old 16th September 2011
  #28
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
It's something that's happened 5 times in 200+ years. There's no guarantee at all that it will happen again.
Extension is 1) relatively easy to achieve - just buy the right people, and 2) immensely profitable, because it means you don't have to create any new works; you just milk existing ones. It's a bonus if your artist offs him- or herself at 27 - those two or three legendary albums are now full profit and do not need to sponsor a drug habit and a destructive lifestyle.

Quote:
Only if you assume cynically that lawmakers are just being purchased
One does not have to assume: that's what the campaign financing system and the lobbying industry already demonstrate in spades. Its redeemable feature is that it is slightly more transparent than outright bribery, and perhaps cheaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson View Post
Investment bankers want everything to be in the public domain so distributors don't need to pay those pesky creative types.
Investment bankers would like to go back to the Gilded age. Pesky creative types are just another bump on the road.

Last edited by Yoozer; 16th September 2011 at 10:37 AM.. Reason: huh, why'd 'r-o-a-d-b-l-o-c-k' get censored
Old 16th September 2011
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
Investment bankers would like to go back to the Gilded age. Pesky creative types are just another bump on the road.
now suddenly you're jumping the fence in support of creators, even though you don't believe their works should be protected, or that they should be compensated fairly... really?

pick a lie and stick to it already...
Old 16th September 2011
  #30
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
...I still don't see how -within the current system- we would get the gatekeepers out of the equation.
The "gatekeepers" are out of the equation far more than the folks peddling securities want people to believe. They conveniently avoid mentioning the fact that copyright belongs to individual creators as the primary owners. They also avoid mentioning the fact that any weakening of copyright law decreases the earnings the primary owner can expect should they choose to license it to some corporation.

This idea that copyright only benefits corporations is right out of George Orwell.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump