Recordings of the Beatles will start entering the UK’s public domain starting in 2012.
BBC News – Monday, 27 November 2006:
Sir Cliff Richard appears set to lose a battle to extend the number of years that musicians can receive royalties for their records, the BBC has learned.
He wants copyright to last 95 years, rather than the present 50 years.
But an independent review is to recommend the terms are not extended, a well-placed government source has said.
This outcome would mean the report had “missed a great opportunity” to support the music industry, the chairman of the British Phonographic Industry claimed.
“There can be no rationale for discriminating against performing artists – a vital part of the creative mix,” said Peter Jamieson.
“Nor can it be possible to justify disadvantaging Britain and Europe in the global music market.
If the UK government decides not to support copyright equalisation, then the music industry will have to continue its campaign in Europe
“The sound recording is as important a copyright as musical composition and film, and deserves a similar lifespan.”
If the findings of the report, commissioned by the Treasury, were backed by the government, Sir Cliff’s earliest tracks would start to come out of copyright in 2008.
The situation applies only to recording artists as composers and their families retain copyright on musical scores until 70 years after the author’s death.
What a deal to be a musician – spend a couple days writing or recording a song and get paid for it for the rest of your life. I wish the industry I work in was like that.
If they decide not to extend copyright I am getting on the first flight to the UK. I am sick and tired of corrupt congressmen who do work for the recording industries on the tax payers time and I hope one day someone might actually see something enter into the public domain and allow indie content creators to challenge the recording industries death grip on rock and roll. I hope this judgment starts us on the road towards that goal.
And I think the article misquoted. I think it was supposed to be “a vital part of the creative monopoly”
There can be no rationale for discriminating against performing artists…
50-years isn’t enough?
Giving the other groups 95-year coverage was a bad idea, IMO, so I automatically reject any “me too” sniveling.
You guys do realize that royalties are only earned if the music is actually played or performed, meaning only the artists whose work is worth hearing 50 years later will benefit. That’s an exclusive group.
But I suppose it’s no big deal if one of you writes a software program and you only get paid for the first year, after which anybody can use it for free. That’s fair, right?
Copyright should be 15 years – period – for anything. That’s a reasonable amount of time to profit from your original work.
#4 “That’s fair, right?”
I realize you’re attempting to be sarcastic, but I agree. Why should a software author be paid again and again merely because he wrote one program.
Certainly he deserves a right to be paid for any copy he sells. And NOTHING under the law will keep Cliff Richard from selling his music. What will stop is his exclusive monopoly over selling his music.
#2 – If they decide not to extend copyright I am getting on the first flight to the UK.
Comment by Pat — 12/1/2006 @ 6:47 am
I’m not sure if the UK’s stand on copyright issues is, in and of itself, a good enough reason to relocate to England. However, once you take into account the world class cooking and the state of the art dental care system, it’s a no-brainer.
(Hey British guys! I’m JOKING!)
2. If they decide not to extend copyright I am getting on the first flight to the UK.
Better watch out for the X-Ray Specs guy before boarding. I hear those x-rays are nasty.
We should make it 10 years, for all copyrights.
I wouldn’t have a problem with a reasonable time of 25 years. That would allow the writer or artist to gain an adequate return for their work. 50 years is a little long and 15 years might be a little short.
#10 And what is an adequate return for a three minute song? It’s not like we are talking about the five years of work, spanned over 16, that it took Wagner to compose his Ring Cycle. As much as I love listening to Primus, I couldn’t care less if Les Claypool is still getting paid from some song he wrote in his basement over a weekend 13 years ago.
Personally, I wonder if (and no, I haven’t invested too much thought into this yet) if it should be the lifetime of the creator, or 15, 20, 25 years, whatever in the case of someone owning the copyright who isn’t the creator.
I think Les Claypool deserves to be paid for commercial use of his work or sales of his work for as long as he can be. After all, he may have wrote a song over the weekend… but really, that’s his income. Before writing that song, he had to “pay his dues” doing low budget gigs in dive bars and eating Raman. He had to not only write that song, but the dozen or so others on the CD… He has to tour and appear at record stores and on talk shows to promote his work. He has a staff who support the business of Primus.
You know… It isn’t like artists scribble a jingle on Monday morning and then have a cash cow to provide them a lifetime on Easy Street.
I’d like to direct a movie. If I get that chance 20 years from now and make a period film set in the 90’s and use a Primus song in the soundtrack, I think chances are that i should owe Mr Claypool some duckets for that.
The main problem I have with our current copyright system, and why it irks me so much, is that for some reason this whole insane royalty system, which seems to be unique to performance arts, has been accepted as some sort of entitlement. A car designer or builder doesn’t get a royalty every time one of his cars is used by somebody else as a taxi to earn a fare after the car is purchased. Does Microsoft get a royalty every time a Windows PC boots up in a corporate workspace? No, they sell a copy of the software (which is protected under copyright), and that is it. If I want to make a dollar today, I can’t just expect my boss, or the people who may have benefitted from my work, to pay me again for work I did last week after I was already paid the first time.
Movie and TV actors not only get paid for the actual time and effort they expend acting, but they also get a lifetime royalty for every future performance of that movie/show from people and organizations who have already legally paid the asked for price of a copy of that work. The same exists for recording artists. And this is completely insane in my opinion. If I own a bar and legally purchase a copy of a CD to put it in my jukebox, I shouldn’t owe anybody else another dime.
I will agree though the using a song in a movie soundtrack is a different issue, since you are necessarily making a copy of a work you don’t have a copyright to. So in that case, you are stuck with whatever terms old Les requires for you to insert his song in your movie.
Movie and TV actors get a contract limited number of residuals–the minimum is seven repeats of a TV viewing. But actors really don’t act for a living–they get rejected for a living.
Royalties are not about the artist rights at all–they are about the publisher’s rights (which are equal to the artists rights, and freqently are the only ones paid.)
cheap effective copyright registration @
http://www.icreateditfrist.com