Microsoft Live Meeting Channels Company's Unwillingness To Discuss Opening Up

Without Copyright Extension, The Beatles Will Never Have Incentive To Write Another Song

from the poor,-poor-ringo-starr... dept

Thu, Oct 19th 2006 1:02pm — Mike Masnick

Over in the UK, they're having a bit of a debate over copyright extension, as the entertainment industry (not surprisingly) is trying to extend copyrights out much longer. In the article at The Guardian, they set up something of a debate between the British Library and someone from the BPI (the British version of the RIAA). The British Library is reasonably worried that all of this copyright stuff is making it nearly impossible to archive data for historical purposes. The longer copyright is extended for, the worse the problem becomes, as plenty of content will simply be completely gone or in unreadable formats by the time it goes out of copyright. It's a terrible precedent for archiving items. The guy from BPI responds that archiving and extension should be two separate issues, and he's absolutely right. From there, however, almost everything he says has problems.

On archiving, he brushes off the concern of the library by suggesting that the copyright owners can do a fine job archiving everything on their own, and that there's really no need for librarians to worry about such petty little things. "The British Library isn't the only archivist in town. The idea that if it weren't for the British Library no archiving would be going on is false." However, if it's a really big concern, he might, possibly be willing to carve out an exception. Of course, he's missing the fact that these firms are archiving content only based on commercial viability, leaving plenty of other works out in the cold. A large part of the debate is over how to archive "orphan works" that have no direct commercial value, but cannot be copied due to copyright restrictions. Because commercial entities are only interested in content that has commercial value, they're not archiving the rest of it. This is just one of the reasons why orphan works laws make sense.

The bigger issue, though, is copyright extension, and again, the guy from BPI is really far off-base. The purpose of copyright is to put in place the incentives for people to create creative works that they might not have done otherwise. Once that work is created, it's hard to see any reason to increase the incentive. After all, the work has already been created. However, here, the BPI representative totally twists the purpose of copyrights around: "Copyrights are the asset bases of British record companies. If we enhance the asset base, we can go on to make other, more exciting entrepreneurial investment decisions. If we increase the length of the term, we increase the value of these assets." By this argument, the government should just keep increasing the asset base value of any company. I should be able to go to the government and demand that they give a tax refund for each blog post, as it increases the likelihood that we'll keep blogging. That's not the purpose of copyright at all.

The story gets even worse, as they try to explain how poor, poor Ringo Starr with have his royalties dry up if copyright isn't extended. Note that these are royalties from songs he created in the 1960s -- on which we're pretty sure Ringo has already made a sum of money that's probably well in excess of what most of us will make in our lifetimes. In almost any other industry, you don't get paid for what you did in 1960. You get paid for the work you do, not for your past work. If Ringo Starr wants to make more money, he can keep making music -- which is exactly what he's been doing lately. And, that alone suggests that there's no need to extend copyrights. As it stands, there's already plenty of incentive to create new works, and we're pretty sure poor, poor Ringo Starr will get by just fine even if some of the Beatles' music goes into the public domain in a few years.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rbb, 19 Oct 2006 @ 1:26pm

C'mon - Paul needs the extension to bring in money to pay the divorce lawyers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 19 Oct 2006 @ 1:51pm

Maybe...
is the Knack had extended their copyright they could still get paid off of "My Sharona" and...what else did they write?

This is nonsense. Big business will do whatever it can to make sure they never have to work again after they inherit mommy and daddy's money. There was a time when copyrights, trademarks, and patents were used to protect people and their work. Now its just a tactic of corporate greed. At this point I firmly believe that only thing that will fix this is a total rewrite of the systems but I'm sure big business has more then enough money to make sure that never happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:08pm

We have Sonny Bono to thank for this mess. It was by his efforts that copyrights went to 70yrs after the owner has died. I admire the suggestion, but no matter what, Ringo will not be creating new songs long after his death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:10pm

Come on man, copyright should be for life, at least. It doesn't matter if most of us wouldn't be paid for work in the sixties, most of us aren't creative artists. It's their work, they don't get paid by the hour, they took a big chance and made it. The artical you're posting now will only make money (ads) after you've posted, now doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wizard Prang, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:13pm

It's different over here...
"Copyrights are the asset bases of British record companies. If we enhance the asset base, we can go on to make other, more exciting entrepreneurial investment decisions. If we increase the length of the term, we increase the value of these assets."

Just had a look at the US Constitution, where I found...

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Didn't say anything about publishers, mediacorps or middlemen, and apparently they have a fairly radical definition of "limited" as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:24pm

Re: It's different over here...
Actually, it's no different over there either -- And their history goes back to well before our constitution.

The Statute of Anne, the world's first copyright law, has within it's own text the following reason for being passed:

"for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books"

That, my friends, came from the year 1710 in the British Parliament.

http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html

Oh, and by the way -- At that time, the term was for 21 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ConceptJunkie (profile), 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:26pm

Well, here's the thing...
It says "authors and inventors" which are people, but unfortunately so are corporations.

The only problem with the system is that corporations can't vote, they are stuck with having to buy the legislation they want. I feel sorry for them.

Orrin Hatch, call your office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:30pm

Oh no
It's the end of the world. I'm going to kill myself because there will be no more new Beatles tunes -- Not. Good, don't make any more of your crappy (IMO) music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrMagoo, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:40pm

About time
The Beatles should have stopped writing (and 'singing')songs 40 years ago.

/Imagine a world with no nasily,whining singing voices...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OperaFan, 19 Oct 2006 @ 2:43pm

And what of the iconic jazz / blues musicians?
Well,

I brought this issue up in the comments for a techdirt post last week regarding an ASCAP suit against a small live performance venue in Portland OR.

http://sss.techdirt.com/articles/20061009/162455.shtml

So I'll reiterate. Ringo Starr may not need money in his lifetime (or in the liftetimes of his children or grandchildren). But what of all the legendary New Orleans musicians wiped out by Hurricane Katrina?

Secondarily, as the British Invasion of the '60s all made their "chops" (and money) off the backs of iconic blues / jazz musicians, don't you think it's time the musical originators were rewarded?

I'm just sayin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2006 @ 3:03pm

Wait until Brian Epstein hears about this!!!!!

......oh, wait, nevermind
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Oct 2006 @ 3:32pm

Re:
Come on man, copyright should be for life, at least. It doesn't matter if most of us wouldn't be paid for work in the sixties, most of us aren't creative artists.

And most creative artists don't make anything for their art. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

It's their work, they don't get paid by the hour, they took a big chance and made it.

And they were successful because they found a big market for it. The MARKET paid them. Why do they need extra gov't protection now?

I took a big chance in starting a company. Do I deserver to be paid just for that initial act of creation? No, I had to come up with a business model and then have to keep working to make the business model pay off in the market.

The artical you're posting now will only make money (ads) after you've posted, now doesn't it?

Right. That's because there's a business model there that's based on things that we put together here. Not the gov't stepping in and saying that we're somehow protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Oct 2006 @ 3:35pm

Re: And what of the iconic jazz / blues musicians?
So I'll reiterate. Ringo Starr may not need money in his lifetime (or in the liftetimes of his children or grandchildren). But what of all the legendary New Orleans musicians wiped out by Hurricane Katrina?

Or what about the musician who never made any money? Or what about the unemployed bum in New Orleans?

Where does it stop? The point is you make money and it's your job to save it up and keep figuring out ways to make money, not the governments.

Secondarily, as the British Invasion of the '60s all made their "chops" (and money) off the backs of iconic blues / jazz musicians, don't you think it's time the musical originators were rewarded?

That has nothing to do with this situation at all. If those musicians didn't make money, that's an issue for them to deal with, not the government to solve for them. So, no, I don't think they deserve to be rewarded now for something they did back then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood, 19 Oct 2006 @ 3:35pm

Re: And what of the iconic jazz / blues musicians?
ASCAP should have another S in it, that is; ASSCAP. Very similar to ASS HAT isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charlie Bird, 19 Oct 2006 @ 4:06pm

Funny, I think I've overpaid the Beatles?
I find it fascinating that the Recording Industry can really attempt a logical argument for the extension of copyright laws on music publishing. (Especially when they bring up Gold and Platinum selling Artists). The lucky few Artists, whose music people are still willing to listen to 50 to 70 years after they wrote it, have been well compensated for their efforts. (That is unless they were swindled by the record companies into selling the rights to their music). Since we're picking on the Beatles, I couldn't even make a guess within 1000 times as to how often I've paid them for writing for instance "Nowhere Man" I've either directly paid through music media purchases or indirectly by watching movies with the songs on the soundtrack, or radio play. If they wanted to work on legislation that would promote the arts, they could put a cap on the royalties any person or comapny could receive for their music and put the excess in a fund for music schools or some other eutopian idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
doubledoh, 19 Oct 2006 @ 4:33pm

libertarian case against IP rights
For those of you with a half hour to kill, this is a great essay that will help put copyrights into perspective:

http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jared, 19 Oct 2006 @ 4:35pm

as if they dont have enough money
because money is the only incentive for creative arts? please, come on, like the beatles dont have enough money already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OperaFan, 19 Oct 2006 @ 4:48pm

Re: Re: And what of the iconic jazz / blues musici
Mike,

How well do you know New Orleans? And yes, it's off-topic, so I won't add more other than to say...

I bet you're just a "tourist" on the music scene, you're not a musician, have never worked with or for musicians (nor in a nightclub or any other venue), a record label, or with the performing arts in any capacity. You have plenty of opinions about the music scene, but are not an active participant -- really how many live music shows have you attended recently?

So I give up on your view from TechDirt. It's your site (of course copyright will apply when it's convenient for you).

Ciao!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2006 @ 6:03pm

Invention and Copyright
Just think you are a 15 year old Mozart and you go on to live until you are 95. Your copyright would last 150 years. Just think if everything done in 1856 were still under copyright.

I wish they put patents in the same law as copyright. I'd love to have my patents go for 70 years after I'm dead. Thomas Edison died in 1931 can you imagine if his patents were good for another 70 years!

The 70 years after you are dead thing was all because of Disney.

Copyrights should last as long as patents and vice-versa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Oct 2006 @ 6:09pm

Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic jazz / blues mu

I bet you're just a "tourist" on the music scene, you're not a musician, have never worked with or for musicians (nor in a nightclub or any other venue), a record label, or with the performing arts in any capacity. You have plenty of opinions about the music scene, but are not an active participant -- really how many live music shows have you attended recently?

What made you think that? I am not a good musician by any right. Not even close, though there have been times when I've played (for fun) just jamming with friends. And, there was one time when a friend's band had me play on stage with them (which I did, but quite badly).

I did, however, work in radio for four years, and was heavily involved in the music scene, working closely with a number of bands and record labels. I also worked at a club as a DJ and helping the club book bands.

To be honest, though, what does that have to do with anything? This is more an argument about economics and business models -- which apply to any industry, not just the music industry.

Either way, I don't see what any of this has to do with having the gov't extend copyrights from 45 years well after the content has been created. And, you don't explain it either, other than you think some old New Orleans musicians deserve it. I disagree. Why are you right?

So I give up on your view from TechDirt. It's your site (of course copyright will apply when it's convenient for you).

Huh? We've said before that we don't care or enforce copyright on this site. If you want to go do something with it, more power to you. Lots of sites do.

You're 0 for 2 on your assumptions here, so please try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Anders, 19 Oct 2006 @ 6:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic jazz / blue
Oooooh smackdown! He's going to be feeling that in the morning...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OperaFan, 19 Oct 2006 @ 7:40pm

Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic jazz
Mike,

oooh...Pulling out your rusty street cred and this late date?

...I did, however, work in radio for four years, and was heavily involved in the music scene, working closely with a number of bands and record labels. I also worked at a club as a DJ and helping the club book bands.

Then you should have a fundamental understanding of licensing and royalties, yet you continue with a fully biased (and uninformed) perspective. What's a matter didn't any of your "friends" achieve fame or fortune? If not I'd think you'd be more empathetic, if not sympathetic.

...Either way, I don't see what any of this has to do with having the gov't extend copyrights from 45 years well after the content has been created. And, you don't explain it either, other than you think some old New Orleans musicians deserve it.

Why do I think some old New Orleans musicians musicians deserve some money? Perhaps because these "old musicians" created the only genuine, indigenous American art form; which led directly to the invention of rock 'n roll.

I do think that extending copyright will ultimately help many "forgotten" artists, whether that be in print, music, still image (paintings) or 3-d art (sculpture). If the original artist is dead, it will possible for the family of the artist to receive some remuneration, no matter how trivial.

I disagree. Why are you right?

Why are you so cheesed off that I disagreed with you to begin with?

So you're correct, seems like noone cares. All you want is free art/music.

Though you may deny it with your last breath, ultimately it's a very conservative point-of-view, rather Republican actually. I'd bet you don't believe in government funded arts organizations either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2006 @ 8:19pm

Wait...
If this gets passed in the UK (not my country) then I will get more beatles tunes?

Sounds good to me!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OperaFan, 19 Oct 2006 @ 8:24pm

Wait... hen I will get more beatles tunes?
Anon,

As far as I know the bulk of the Beatles catalog is owned by Michael Jackson (and now his *many* creditors).

Let's wait and see, it's gonna be intersting all the way around
[ link to this | view in thread ]
satan, 19 Oct 2006 @ 9:37pm

21 years
21 years is long enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Oct 2006 @ 10:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic jazz
oooh...Pulling out your rusty street cred and this late date?

Heh. You've got me all figured out OperaFan. I don't mention this for the past decade or so in all of my discussions, because I've been waiting for just this moment... and that's why as soon as I brought it up (only after you accused me of not knowing anything about the music industry) I pointed out why it didn't matter.

So, please explain to me which way you want it. First you say I can't comment on it because I have no experience in the industry. Then I point out that I do have experience in the industry, and you make fun of me for trying to show that I have "street cred."

You really can't have it both ways...

The real point, though, is that it doesn't matter. Do I say that you're not qualified to discuss the economics of the industry unless you have an economics degree? No. Because that's stupid.

Then you should have a fundamental understanding of licensing and royalties, yet you continue with a fully biased (and uninformed) perspective.

I do have an understanding of licensing and royalties. I just think it's a bad system that's set up to encourage the wrong type of behavior. I didn't realize that if I disagree with it, it must be because I'm uninformed. Could it be, instead, that maybe it's a bad system?

What's a matter didn't any of your "friends" achieve fame or fortune? If not I'd think you'd be more empathetic, if not sympathetic.

Again, that's got nothing to do with anything. I've had some friends do okay in the industry, and plenty who did terribly. I've also had friends who have done well and done poorly in the tech world. Do I push the government to reward those whose startups failed? No. I'm empathetic and sympathetic, but I recognize that these things happen. This is true of even some tech companies I thought had revolutionary ideas, but which ended up failing for whatever reason. I don't think the gov't should go and reward them. Why should I act differently towards the music industry?

Why do I think some old New Orleans musicians musicians deserve some money? Perhaps because these "old musicians" created the only genuine, indigenous American art form; which led directly to the invention of rock 'n roll.

And that's wonderful. It's why I listen to many of them on the CDs I've bought. But can you explain to me what it does to extend the life of the copyright any longer (and, you do realize this is just in the UK we're discussing, right?). It doesn't do any good at all. If you really want to celebrate these musicians (as you should), why not encourage getting their music into the public domain where they can be played and heard much more often, inspiring a new generation of musicians and getting people to learn and understand that these original musicians really were the root of much of the music we enjoy today? Then, perhaps, they'll be able to do things that will help make them money today, rather than sitting back and hoping they can get money from what they did so many years ago.

Why are you so cheesed off that I disagreed with you to begin with?

I'm not. I'm "cheesed off" that you made a bunch of assumptions that were totally wrong and failed to back up your own assertions with anything representing logic. That's not a debate, that's a waste of time.

So you're correct, seems like noone cares. All you want is free art/music.

Huh? Where do you get this from. I've gone through in great detail why that's not true at all. The points I've made show why on an economic basis, it will help the industry much more to support free music, but it's got nothing to do with what I "want". It has to do with a basic understanding of economics.

Though you may deny it with your last breath, ultimately it's a very conservative point-of-view, rather Republican actually. I'd bet you don't believe in government funded arts organizations either.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but again, you're actually wrong. I'm all for gov't funded arts organizations. I actually wish they'd do more to support the arts, especially on the education side. What I'm against, is them granting excess and unnecessary (and ultimately damaging) monopolies for commercial interests in the space.

So that's a third assumption where you are completely wrong. Wanna try for a fourth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Golff, 19 Oct 2006 @ 10:46pm

one thing is for sure - love em hate em - the beatles still generate more press than any other artist(s) in history. put that in your pipe (as long as it's legal) and smoke it naysayers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mmrtnt (profile), 20 Oct 2006 @ 1:59am

That Should be a T-shirt
Without Copyright Extension, The Beatles Will Never Have Incentive To Write Another Song
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2006 @ 4:18am

>"In almost any other industry, you don't get paid for what you did in 1960. You get paid for the work you do, not for your past work."

Silly musicians and authors. Imagining that there's a difference between creating art and, say, doing plumbing. All writers and songwriters should get paid on an hourly basis (and as lowly as possible).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sonny Bono, 20 Oct 2006 @ 5:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic jazz
Mikey,

re:

" oooh...Pulling out your rusty street cred and this late date?

Heh. You've got me all figured out OperaFan. I don't mention this for the past decade or so in all of my discussions, because I've been waiting for just this moment... and that's why as soon as I brought it up (only after you accused me of not knowing anything about the music industry) I pointed out why it didn't matter.

So, please explain to me which way you want it. First you say I can't comment on it because I have no experience in the industry. Then I point out that I do have experience in the industry, and you make fun of me for trying to show that I have "street cred."

You really can't have it both ways...
"

The way I read it, he was making FUN of your street cred, saying you WEREN'T a musician. He wasn't trying to have it both ways. So him poking fun at your idea of "street cred" fully supported his assertion that you have no REAL music industry experience.

I'm not saying he's right. I'm just saying you've misinterpreted his post in your attempt to defend yourself rabidly without thinking. And it only makes you look like a reactive whiner boy. Which I don't think you are. I think most of the stuff you write is dead on -- usually because you give yourself time to gather all the facts and then write a well-reasoned response.

I think you'd do far better to give yourself the same opportunity when replying to trolls. Like maybe don't respond to ANY postings within 24 hours after you read them or something, and then do it in batch so that it's much more a part of your well-reasoned writing process. As-is, all the posts where you seem (from the timestamps anyway) like ones where you just replied off-the-cuff in the wee hours of the mornings.

Ala Neuharth: Illegitimi non carborundum. (Loosely translated, don't let the b***ards get you down.) And more importantly, don't let the rest of the Techdirt world SEE the b***ards getting you down. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YouKnowNothing, 20 Oct 2006 @ 6:24am

Re: Maybe...
Actually, the Knack had two hits of their first album, "My Sharona" and "Good Girls Don't." They also had two hits off their second album, "Baby Talks Dirty" and a cover the Kinks' "The Hard Way."

They also put out a third album in 1981 ("Round Trip") before breaking up. They reunited in 1991 and released a new album "Serious Fun" and then the album "Zoom" in 1998. They are still touring and going strong.

They are a very underrated Power Pop band. Berton Averre is a very good guitar player.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Insaniac, 20 Oct 2006 @ 8:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic jaz
I disagree with Sonny Bono. I don't think that Opera Fan was simply making fun of the 'street cred' and i don't think that he was saying that he wasn't a musician.

Also, even if his point was that Mike wasn't a musician, that wouldn't further his point any. He originally claimed that Mike was an outsider in the music industry and didn't have any close connection to it, not that Mike didn't understand because he wasn't a musician.

So either way, you're wrong. Either you read it wrong, or the point made didn't further his argument.

Also, I happen to fully agree with everything Mike has said in response to Opera Fan. It's people like Opera Fan who fail to see the importance of logic in arguments and resort instead to namecalling and false assumptions about the other individual. I think Mike was right to respond quickly to Opera Fan's posts and it seems to me that all his posts are well thought out. Opera Fan, on the other hand, seems to be the one to respond "off the cuff". None of his arguments make sense and his responses don't address the questions or challenges posed by Mike.

So, bottom line, Mike has established his knowledge and credibility, and has managed to back up all of his opinions. Opera Fan has done none of these things.

What more needs to be said?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Captain MeToo, 20 Oct 2006 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And what of the iconic
Don't feed the trolls!

Great article! Keep it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Benefacio, 20 Oct 2006 @ 4:41pm

Wait a minute......
If someone wants to buy a copy of a song I recorded 60 years ago what right do you have that should stop me, or the people I sold the original to (read Record Label Corporation), from making money for that transaction? By extension of this question, what right do you have to ask I, or the people I sold the original to (read Record Label Corporation), "Where does it stop?" Don't we all have the right (barring obvious moral limitations such as price gouging or insider trading, etc.) to make as much money as we can for the work we do? Do we put salary caps on every job so people can only make so much money?

I would also ask what basis there is for forcing me to allow other people to make money off my hard work without giving me due compensation? If I am smart enough to re-energize a market to want my 60-year-old product or lucky enough to have a product that is still in demand 70 years later don't I have the right to profit from that? Current copyright law says no, I don't.

I say make copyright indefinite and non-inheritable. The sheer volume of human creativity overwhelms any attempt to archive that creativity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rafael Venegas, 21 Oct 2006 @ 9:35am

Copyright Duration
First, a one size fits all approach is wrong. A photograph that cost nothing to make should not have the same copyright duration as a $50million movie. No one will make a movie it it has no time to recuperate the investment. On the other hand the lack of copyright duration will not stop anyone from taking photos of the his/her dog.

For movies, the duration should depend on the cost of making the movie.

For music, I propose 20 years after publishing a comercial recording along with a $500 renovation period of 20 more years or until the death of the author, whichever comes later. That way only commercially sucessful music remains under copyright and authors are always guaranteed exploitation rights until death. The rule shall apply to the authors and the heirs. 40 years, minimum, total time is enough.

The tranference of copyrights to publishers should be prohibited. Only very limited (3 year max.) time exploitation rights transfers to publishers should be permitted.

For archiving by non profit organizations, copying should always be allowed, for archiving, scholar and educational purposes

For file sharing, there should be no copying restrictions. To compensate copyright holders from the shared copies, perhaps a tax deduction can be allowed for a percent of reported received royalties income, on the tax form. A way of insuring that royalty income is reported at tax time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rafael Venegas, 21 Oct 2006 @ 9:36am

Copyright Duration
First, a one size fits all approach is wrong. A photograph that cost nothing to make should not have the same copyright duration as a $50million movie. No one will make a movie it it has no time to recuperate the investment. On the other hand the lack of copyright duration will not stop anyone from taking photos of the his/her dog.

For movies, the duration should depend on the cost of making the movie.

For music, I propose 20 years after publishing a comercial recording along with a $500 renovation period of 20 more years or until the death of the author, whichever comes later. That way only commercially sucessful music remains under copyright and authors are always guaranteed exploitation rights until death. The rule shall apply to the authors and the heirs. 40 years, minimum, total time is enough.

The tranference of copyrights to publishers should be prohibited. Only very limited (3 year max.) time exploitation rights transfers to publishers should be permitted.

For archiving by non profit organizations, copying should always be allowed, for archiving, scholar and educational purposes

For file sharing, there should be no copying restrictions. To compensate copyright holders from the shared copies, perhaps a tax deduction can be allowed for a percent of reported received royalties income, on the tax form. A way of insuring that royalty income is reported at tax time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
carole, 22 Oct 2006 @ 11:24am

Re: About time
Hello, they DID stop 40 years ago. Do the math
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gita, 9 Nov 2006 @ 6:47pm

A Question
Need you're help on this one......

can i post a video i made on the You.Tube site with the background sound of a full track song by the beatles?

The song is from 1969 and according to You.Tube copyright the best way is to get permission from the record label or use only a small section of the song/sound.

since i wish to use the full track of the sound, which record company do i need to contact? do i actually need to get a permission if it's for a non-profitable purpose.....

Any help would be appriciated......

Gratefully,

Gita.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 11 Nov 2006 @ 11:53am

wow
The Beatles are a great band, and that's it. These arguments and article have no point and it's very funny to me. If half of you knew what the hell you were talking about it'd be somewhat inticing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]