EU Rejects Copyright Extension... For Now
from the good-news dept
Following the recent debates on copyright extension, there's a bit of good news. It appears that the Council of the European Union rejected yet another attempt to extend the copyright on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like this is (by any means) the end of such proposals. In fact, it's been made clear that this rejection is just a step in the process towards copyright extension. Of course, a bunch of recording industry lobbyists are complaining about how unfair this is, but they fail to explain how it could possibly be seen as fair to retroactively change the deal made with the public to take away the public domain. The entire purpose of copyright is to put in place a limited-time monopoly to act as incentive to create new works. Obviously, that incentive worked, or the content wouldn't have been created. Unfortunately, the recording industry now wants people to believe that copyright is some sort of welfare system for musicians, whereby they should continue getting paid for work they did over 50 years ago. It's a total distortion of the purpose of copyright law -- and one that will cost consumers dearly, and pay musicians little, but enrich the recording industry tremendously. Yet, because of some sob stories about how musicians need this, politicians across Europe have been leaping on board.
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
Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, eu, europe
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Actually, I wonder if most of the artists currently bemoaning their work passing out of copyright had even heard of the system 50 years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Surely this was crafted by someone other than MM...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What makes you say that? I don't think it's at all debatable what the *purpose* of copyright law is, and that's all I stated there.
The question that I raise -- separately -- is whether or not it serves that purpose. I think there's tremendous evidence that it doesn't succeed, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing extending it, and thus, the official purpose is quite important to lay out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In any case, copyright serves a purpose and has managed to do fairly well for a long time. It was only when people began thinking that copyright should last for lifetimes that things began to get cheesy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. I'm actually making the opposite point, which I think would be clear to most people. The point is that the content was created, so no additional incentive was needed. Whether or not the content was created because of that incentive doesn't change that point. I'd argue in most cases it had nothing at all to do with that incentive, but that is meaningless in the context of copyright extension. For the purposes of the argument, "the incentive worked" (whatever it was). The content was created. So why would you add additional incentive post creation?
I didn't realize this stuff was so complex for supposed "IP lawyers" to understand. It's pretty straightforward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well - Duh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright terms
Yes, I am a patent attorney - no, I am not trying to promote more business - I simply want to see the objectives of the US Constitution realized.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright terms
Obviously this is not your real name since no one by that name appears on the register at the USPTO.
If it is your real name, might I ask where it is that you practice patent law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]