UK Copyright Extension Not Happening

chiark writes "In a surprising move (surveys said that the public supports extending copyright), the UK will not extend copyright to 95 years following a recent study. Back when this was was covered on slashdot last year, I wrote to my MP and thought no more of it, but recently a UK thinktank has called for fair use to be enshrined in UK Law. Looks like the government is realizing that the public are the ones that vote 'em in or out." From the article: "Sir Cliff Richard and Jethro Tull had been among artists lobbying for copyright to last 95 years, rather than the present 50. The decision means that from 2008 Sir Cliff's earliest recordings will start to come out of copyright. "

Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[myrdred]

I think the way to solve both problems (creators keeping copyright and it not being abused for too long) is to make it last 50 years OR until the death of the creator of the work. This way, creators who are still alive do not feel cheated like they do currently (after all, they made it), but the timeframe is not extended in all cases, so the work still enters public domain if the author has passed away and 50 years expired.

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not a good idea to put a price on the head of an author when you consider that the music industry is already into mafia-like tactics like payola...

Re:

[deathy_epl+ccs]

Probably not a good idea to put a price on the head of an author when you consider that the music industry is already into mafia-like tactics like payola...

Your logic is flawed. If the copyright vanishes if their artist dies, as the parent suggests, then it would be in the music industry's best interest to keep him alive for as long as possible.

I suspect that if this were to become the case, the music industry would become heavily invested in various life extension technologies.

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[Don_dumb]

various life extension technologies.

Method 1 - denial -
"He's not dead he's just sleeping!"

Re:

[famebait]

If the copyright vanishes if their artist dies, as the parent suggests, then it would be in the music industry's best interest to keep him alive for as long as possible.

Only for the one company that owns the rights. To all the others, the death of a well-selling artist would be a tempting opportunity.

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[sams67]

"You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties... been living on that and suddenly they're gone." Maybe you could get of you're arse and do some work then? Just a suggestion ...

Re:

[rucs_hack]

55 years of copyright would seem adequate time to make money for a song.

Anyway, he still has the right to publish the songs, just not the unique right, this does not mean an end to money for an old song.

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[cjb909]

But what about the children? Shouldn't they benefit from the creations and hard work of their parents? Won't somebody please think of the children?

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[Artifakt]

I know that was tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth noting. You can always make the same arguement at any time, so it leads to totally unlimited copyright. What about the grand-children benefiting from the creations and hard work of their grand-parents?
      To those artists who actually support this. Frankly, if you're an artist, and you want your heirs unto the fifth generation to have a special advantage over everyone else's equally remote descendants, you're a lunatic megalomaniac, with some kind of fixation about founding imperial dynasties, and it's about time your fans told you off. I'm still contributing to an anuity for my kid, hope you do something similar. I worked hard when she was growing up too - instead of complaining that she wouldn't continue to receive money if I died, I carried lots of life insurance. I carry less now that she's grown, educated and mostly independant. Shouldn't she benefit some more from that money I spent on life insurance earlier? And if not her, well she's gonna make me a grandfather someday (or so she says) - why can't I pass on some of the fruits of my old carreer to those cute little hypothetical grandkids?
      "Ooohhh! Ooohhh! I want my highly evolved descendants living in the Omega Centauri region a million years from now to benefit from my hard work, won't someone please think of the 19 ft. tall, cylendrical, neutronium sheathed, stardrive-up-the-spine fitted trans-transhuman children?".

Re:

[Loconut1389]

except that the work only makes money if people are still buying or performing it- which means it still has value to someone. If the work was a piece of junk, the kids wouldn't get anything anyway.

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[tverbeek]

Regardless, why do the adult children (and especially grand-children) of a musician, author, etc deserve to get money for work they had no part in creating? Let them create their own income-producing works, or earn a living some other way. My parents have told me that I shouldn't count on any special inheritance from them (they expect to spend most of what they've saved), and I'm perfectly content with that because I've done nothing to earn that money.

Providing for one's minor children and/or dependent spouse is a noble and admirable goal, which should be supported by keeping copyrights valid for some term after the creator's death if he has dependents... but not a term so long that every person who even knew the creator is dead before it expires.

Personally, since I have no dependents, I've decided to draft a will that specifies that upon my death, all intellectual property I own will be bequeathed to the public domain.

Re:

[cammoblammo]

Providing for one's minor children and/or dependent spouse is a noble and admirable goal, which should be supported by keeping copyrights valid for some term after the creator's death if he has dependents... but not a term so long that every person who even knew the creator is dead before it expires.

I agree with this completely. I knew someone who took a year off work in order to research and write a book. He had enough put away to care for his family for the year, and his job was left open for him if t

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[tverbeek]

Since you ask, I'm not particularly fond of the way children and grandchildren tend to inherit companies they had no part in building, either. I've seen several examples first-hand where the heirs either screwed it up or abused the fortune for personal gain; they didn't deserve it. Business inheritance serves to create a hereditary aristocracy that gives economic advantages and power to people based on who their parents were. Level playing fields and equal opportunity be damned. But I'm not actually radical enough to advocate the abolition of inheritance, so I won't press that point.

I don't believe that intellectual property should be as sacrosanct as real property. I think the framers of the U.S. Constitution (who definitely believed in real property and inheritance thereof) got it right: copyright exists for reasons that serve the public good, not for the private good.

Re:

[ronanbear]

It's not about children and grandchildren having earnt the money it's about the hard working parents being free to decide what they want to do with their money.

If I work hard I should be allowed do what I want with my money. If I want to give it to my children then that's my right. Money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

Unlimited inheritance encourages rich children to put their money in the bank, take no financial risks and live off some of the interest.

Sensible inheritance taxes can do a lot to reduce t

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[Maxo-Texas]

No because by that time, the patent expired (MUCH faster than copyright) and there are 37 other companies producing widgets.

Why is music so much more special than any other creative work?

Copyright law does not exist to enrich artists. It exists to *encourage* them to create works. Are we experiencing a wave of artists refusing to create works because copyright law isn't strong enough? Are we not in fact experiencing a huge GLUT of entertainment which is only going to become larger over time?

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[blackest_k]

"Are we experiencing a wave of artists refusing to create works because copyright law isn't strong enough?"

wishful thinking,
Sir Cliff manages to release something around this time, every year - unfortunately

Re:

[anthony_dipierro]

I know that was tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth noting. You can always make the same arguement at any time, so it leads to totally unlimited copyright. What about the grand-children benefiting from the creations and hard work of their grand-parents?

The thing is, if copyright is for the life of the author and that's it, then where is the incentive for people who don't have many years left to create copyrighted work?

If the purpose of copyright law is not to provide equity but rather to create an incentive f

Re:

[CastrTroy]

If copyright lasts for so long, then where is the incentive for the author to actually create more works? If you can write a single book/song/whatever, and live off the royalties for the next 95 years, then where is your incentive to create more works? Copyright shouldn't give someone the ability to live their entire life off of something they created when they were 20. They should have to continue to work and produce new works if they want to make a living. Copyright should last 5-10 years from initial

Re:

[joto]

Uhmm, no.

And in the case of Cliff Richard or the members of Jethro Tull, I'm quite sure the children get to inherit something anyway.

Re:

[joto]

I seriously doubt that. (But it might be true in a legal sense)

Re:

[etymxris]

The problem then is that this could lead to contract killings.

Re:

[muszek]

I can imagine the headlines: "Sir Cliff murdered by a IP-hungry swarm of torrent users".

Re:

[drsmithy]

The problem then is that this could lead to contract killings.

Fortunately, murder is already illegal.

(I really don't get how anyone can consider that an argument. Seriously, how many people do you think are out there prepared to commit murder, but *not* prepared to break copyright law ?)

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[Animats]

No. Fifty years, period. That's all the TRIPS agreement (the WTO's requirement for national copyright laws) requires. If you haven't invested your fifty years of royalties, tough.

Now we have to push for "copyright harmonization" in the US to cut back US copyright to the TRIPS standards. It's time for the Copyright Term Reduction Act.

Fifty years and it's free. It's a law we can live with.

Re:

[stinerman]

Fifty? How about 10? Better yet, five with a five year extension. Anything more than that is off the table for me. And while we're at it, make it a commercial copyright.

Re:

[Martin Blank]

Anything else is off the table? So if it were an option of decreasing from the current insanity to fifty years, you'd rather keep the laws in place now?

Re:

[wes33]

I'll go along with 10 years - but the renewal should cost real money (not a huge sum, but enough to make it a real choice).

Yah for commercial-only copyright

[QuantumG]

copyright should not apply to personal use, period. Can we have a law that has some relationship to its enforcability please? Here's a litle experiment for ya:

Go see your mother (you should anyway), have a look through her CD/DVD/sewing pattern collection (which she has depends on age of your mother), pick one you like and ask "can I have a copy of this?" I absolutely guarentee she will say "yes." If she doesn't, it's probably because you never visit her.

Now I ask you, if a law exists that everyone's Mom is willing to break, what the hell kind of society are we living in?

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[s7uar7]

Death of the creator of the work plus dependant children until they're 18 would seem fair.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

I disagree, but in any case, so? Copyright isn't meant to be fair. It's meant to get the greatest benefit for the public at the least cost to the public. If 10 year copyright is just as much of an incentive to artists in terms of them actually creating works as 100 year copyright is, then the former is the only acceptable choice. And often the difference can be just that stark, since the vast majority of copyrights are worthless, and of the tiny fraction that have any value ever, the vast majority of those

Re:

[kimvette]

E.g. if you have a movie, most of your profit will come in the first few weeks that it is open in theaters, in the first few weeks it is on pay per view, in the first few weeks it is available for rental, etc. Very very little comes from the movie years down the road.

The Wizard of Oz probably makes the copyright holders more NOW than it did in the 1930s.

Re:

[russ1337]

>>>...."is to make it last 50 years OR until the death of the creator of the work"

I'm sure the record company will argue they are the creator of the work... and they'll never die.

You may also wish to append "whichever is greater" (You have to think of the children)

Re:

[Simon Garlick]

*skim-reads post*

What's that you say? You think someone should kill Sir Cliff?

Re:

[daeg]

What about companies?

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[AuMatar]

So do dead mechanics, dead teachers, dead garbagemen, etc. They don't get paid after death unless they invested their money. Neither should artists.

Of course, life is way too long as well. The original copyright was 12 years, and at that time reproduction and distribution was much slower than today. 3 years should be more than sufficient in this day and age.

Re:Suggestion: Until Death of Creator

[Andy_R]

Civilisation didn't actually start with the US constitution! The *original* copyright was actually 21 years, specified in the British Statute of Anne [copyrighthistory.com] in 1710, unless you count the licencing act of 1662, which granted rights that never expired.

While I'm in favour of much shorter copyright terms, I'm not sure your analogy works very well, since dead garbagemen don't clear up much rubbish, but dead musicians do sell a lot of records.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure your analogy works very well, since dead garbagemen don't clear up much rubbish, but dead musicians do sell a lot of records.

Err, a musicians job is to MAKE records, not to SELL them, so I think it's a pretty good analogy.

Re:

[Duhavid]

Dead musicians sell no records, they just decompose.

Their works continue to sell, and it is an interesting question
of if their families benefit from those sales, I dont know one
way or another.

Re:

[Cheapy]

Reproduction took longer than 9 months back in then? Wow!

Re:

[Haeleth]

The difference is that the creation of an artistic work is a more long-term investment: you pick up garbage, you get paid for it, but if you create an artistic work there is no money to be seen until you have invested a huge amount in producing a complete work, banking on the hope that people will like it enough when you're done to support you while you work on the next one(s).

You seem to have a very distorted, rosy-eyed view of what art and copyright are about. I hold a number of copyrights for works I li

Living off 1955...

[mccalli]

From the article:
'Music journalist Neil McCormack told BBC Radio Five Live it was a blow to the industry..."You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties... been living on that and suddenly they're gone."'.

Well yep - honestly if you haven't done anything else in 50 years it probably should be gone too. In a not especially long amount of time, some Beatles stuff will be coming out of copyright. Now I'm no Beatles expert, but it seems to me that absolutely all of them went on to do more work elsewhere and didn't just sit back living off their early work. I see that statement as a good thing, not as a 'blow to the industry'.

Be interesting to compare and contrast with film - what's the UK limit on film copyrights?

Cheers,
Ian

Exactly

[etymxris]

The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works. Anything more than 10 years (in my view) is actually counterproductive. Derivative works are stymied by the monopoly the original creator has. Sure, you can negotiate and pay big dollar to license a derivative work. But, for example, had Disney been the original creator of "Alice in Wonderland" you can bet that the video game "Alice" would never have been made.

Re:

[Benzido]

10 years is a good idea, not so much because of the possibility of derivative works, but because it encourages people like Cliff Richard to continue to create new works himself. You are exactly right, a 50-year copyright is counterproductive, because it allows someone who produces a single number-one hit to retire immediately.

Re:

[Secret Agent X23]

Well yep - honestly if you haven't done anything else in 50 years it probably should be gone too.

On the one hand, I have to agree with this. On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.

On the third hand, when copyright expires, it doesn't mean the original creator loses all rights to sell the work. It just means he no longer has the exclusive right.

Re:Living off 1955...

[QuantumG]

I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.

Yeah, and that's the problem with copyright law, people think it exists to "reward artists" or something.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating method and purpose (which was exactly the problem in the first place). The question is whether the method is effective. Originally, copyright terms were much shorter, because they were designed to keep artists creating new art. Along the way, people stopped viewing copyright as a method to keep artists working and started viewing the artificial rewards (i.e. the method) as artists' rights (i.e. a purpose).

They're not rights, though. They're a method originally intended to promote science a

Re:

[ZorbaTHut]

But he's got a financial reward for it - he's been selling a recording for fifty years.

That's not a bad reward at all. Considering how valuable shelf space is in music stores, if a CD isn't selling much it's not going to be selling at all. Fifty years of sales should make quite a tidy amount of cash.

Re:

[B.D.Mills]

If someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.

You are assuming that the artist actually owns the copyright to their works. That is not usually the case. More often, it's a corporation in the recording industry that owns the copyright, and the artist receives royalties from the corporation - after the corporation takes their cut. I believe that any extension of copyright should include clauses that stipulate that the copyright

Re:

[afaik_ianal]

The issue is quite separate from copyright, and it's called an Option. It's much more common in movies and financial markets than it is in music, because the potential losses in the music industry are much lower. It's not so much that music artists are as shrewd, just that the risks aren't as big.

When you want to purchase something with a high risk, you can often share that risk with the original owner of the thing you want to buy.

In the case of The Hobbit, Saul Zaentz has the sole right to produce a movi

Re:

[Bogtha]

On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.

50 years-worth of royalties isn't enough of a financial reward?

Re:Living off 1955...

[elronxenu]

Much as I love Jethro Tull, I can't agree with Ian Anderson's position on this issue.

Here's his webpage on the matter: Anderson Speaks Out on Recorded Copyright Law in the UK [j-tull.com] in which Ian considers that copyright on his recordings should be like owning a house - the owner can obtain revenue from the house indefinitely.

I think "painting a house" is a better analogy. Performing/recording music is like painting a house, it requires a fixed amount of effort to complete. The painter doesn't receive ongoing royalties from people who enjoy looking at the house, nor does the owner of the house have to pay the painter every year for the previous paint job.

In fact Ian goes on to say "I would have better protection as the bricks-and-mortar builder of my house than a builder of recorded music.". Well, the house builder doesn't receive ongoing royalties either.

Ian complains that "This Was" will be out of copyright in 12 years. I note that "This Was" requires exactly zero ongoing effort from the band. The only effort required is in reproduction and distribution, for which the record label is, ahem, more than adequately compensated.

Ian closes his argument by appealing to our compassion: "Why should we perhaps have to see these musicians struggle in old age without heat for their homes or the wherewithal to pay their nursing home bills while their American counterparts are taken care of for life by ongoing royalty income?". Of course being an appeal to emotion, it isn't a terribly rational argument. Why should old artists be treated any differently to old painters? We expect the painters to provide for their own old age by investments, superannuation or, failing that, the Government pension. Why should old artists be treated differently, that they should not care to provide for their future while they are still earning money from their performances or compositions?

Re:

[TechForensics]

There is a fundamental philosophical principle in play. How far down the line of posterity should the "dead hand" control freedom of the living? In the English common law, which is the basis of US law as well, no conveyance of an interest in real property shall be valid unless it must vest in an ultimate, unrestricted owner within twenty-one years of the termination of a life in being. This means you can leave your realty to your son for life, and 21 years later to those of your descendants then living,

Re:

[arth1]

But there's a key difference: The paint job doesn't generate revenue on an ongoing basis, the way a successful musical recording does.

Sure it does! The local pub sign performs every night, and draws paying customers, but the guy who painted the boar doesn't get a cut for fifty years, and neither does his manager.

Re:

[mickwd]

"On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it."

What about the money from 50+ years of sales, suitably invested over a 50+year period ?

Re:Living off 1955...

[Scarletdown]

On the one hand, I have to agree with this. On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.

On the third hand, when copyright expires, it doesn't mean the original creator loses all rights to sell the work. It just means he no longer has the exclusive right.

How about a system like this?

Traditional exclusive copyright - 15 years with an option to extend another 5 for a fee.

After the initial 15 years (or 20), the copyright goes to a Creative Commons license - Attribution, Share-Alike, Non-Commercial for a period of 50 years from when the work was originally created. So that would be 30 to 35 years under a CC license. This would allow others to create non-commercial derivative works based off the original, and the original creator would still have control over commercial uses of his/her work.

Then after 50 years from creation, the work enters into the public domain.

Re:

[anandsr]

How about this?

1) Work is owned by the author alone, and is non transferable, ie you cannot sell all rights to it. You can only license it.
2) Performance of a work can be owned by a company, but is limited to 10 years only, after that it goes into PD.
3) The Copywrite is automatic for the first 5 years, after that it must be registered and payed for 5 year periods.
4) Works can be licensed exclusively for the first 10 years only, after that licenses must be non-exclusive and compulsary.
The author can not deny

Re:

[lottameez]

Well, what about you? Let's say that you put your savings into a bank in 1955. Should "society" have free rights to that money after 50 years? After all, you should have still have been working, right?

Trust me, I'm not fan of ridiculously long copyright periods, but saying that you have the right to take my property just because I was unwilling or unable to duplicate my previous success doesn't sound fair to me.

Re:

[mccalli]

...Let's say that you put your savings into a bank in 1955. Should "society" have free rights to that money after 50 years? After all, you should have still have been working, right?

It should not have free access, regardless of whether I'd been working or not. But I'm not suggesting taking artists' money, they too will have their money in the bank from the savings account they opened in 1955, and I am not suggesting anyone gains free access to it. The artists keep their money, of course they do. What th

Re:

[lottameez]

I used the idea of a savings account to put things in the starkest light, but it really could be any property I create. If I start and then leave a profitable company... do I have to give up my stock after 50 years? Why not? If I create sculptures that I charge people to see in my gallery, do I have to give them up after 50 years? If the answer is no, why should copyright be any different? It's a product of my hard work and skills just as these other things are.

I don't know if I'm making this any cle

Re:Living off 1955...

[geekoid]

Copyright is government protection of a work, in exchange for the work becoming public domain.

This is the deal, and some artists and all the corporation want to change the deal after enjoying many, many, years of government protection.

That is why it is different then other property. They want indeffinate copyright? fine, but all litigation should be in a civil court, and all collection of evidence is left up to the corporation, no search warrents, nothing.

Quit frankly, anything more the 15 years(based on typical earning for a work) is stealing from the public domain.

Most copyrights (95%+) make nothing after 15 years, and keeping it away from the public longer for just a small minority it absurd.

Re:Living off 1955...

[SanityInAnarchy]

If I start and then leave a profitable company... do I have to give up my stock after 50 years? Why not?

I'd say the company is a real entity, still actually producing. Your "intellectual property" is pretty imaginary.

I would say that if, after 50 years, the company itself should be losing some intellectual property -- if they are an R&D firm, they better be making new things if they want to be around after 50 years. If you're selling real, physical products, then by all means, continue. If you're sitting on some real estate, and you've found a way to make money off it, chances are you have to actually do some maintenance, so that seems fair. But if all you're doing is sitting on some patents, then the company should die in 5 years, not 50.

If I create sculptures that I charge people to see in my gallery, do I have to give them up after 50 years?

I'd say that after 50 years, people should be able to copy your sculpture, make derivative works, etc. You don't have to give them up.

I'm just uncomfortable with society appropriating my property when "it" feels I've had it long enough.

The thing is, you're still thinking of copyright as your property.

Copyright is actually a bit mis-named. It's a right to be the only one copying, not simply a right to copy. You can still sell them after 50 years, but others can make copies and sell those.

And I do feel that after 50 years, you should either be doing something else or you should be retired. Think of it as a tax -- after those 50 years, your work becomes available for others to improve on. Derivative works are a good thing. Public archives are a good thing.

It might help if you think of it less as your property and more as a lease from society. After all, society giveth the copyright, society has the right to taketh away. Yes, you put in the work to create the material, but society bears the burden of protecting this artificial right of yours -- laywers, courts, etc. Just somewhat better than, say, signing a deal with most record labels...

The *copyright* is the property, not the idea

[Geof]

I'm just uncomfortable with society appropriating my property when "it" feels I've had it long enough.

It seems to me the idea (piece of music, recording, whatever) is not and cannot be property (at least not in the sense that physical objects or land can be property). The copyright itself - i.e., the limited-time monopoly created and enforced by the government - is the property. Let me emphasize that: the property here is created by the government. As an encouragement for artists and others to produce ideas, society rewards them by creating a kind of property and granting it to them. Society moreover provides resources for the enforcement of that property right. But the right is time limited: after a certain period, society no longer recognizes or enforces the right it previously granted.

Think of it like this. You write a song. You take that song to the government, and they give you a document stating that you have an exclusive right to copy and perform that song for the next N years. The song may not be property, but the document certainly is: its ownership is enforced by the law, you can sell it, and so forth. When those N years are up, you still have the document, but the rights in conferred have expired. Did anyone take anything away from you? On the contrary, they gave you something. Oh, and incidentally, you still have the song you wrote.

These days there's no document proving your rights; the grant is automatic. I don't know if there ever was such a document, although filing used to be required. The point is, copyright is a social construct, and the right is property. Ideas, on the other hand, are not.

Re:

[jeffkjo1]

If I create sculptures that I charge people to see in my gallery, do I have to give them up after 50 years? If the answer is no, why should copyright be any different? It's a product of my hard work and skills just as these other things are.

Sculptures are different than copyright. Basically, copyright is a really weird legal concept. It means that I can sell you a CD, but I can still tell you what you're allowed to do with what's on the cd. If I sell you a sculpture, you can do whatever you want... yo

Re:

[MindStalker]

Thats so stupid you keep your money you just don't get to earn any additional interest. Either way the original agreement with the government was 50 years and they are sticking with that. Kinda like a 50 year bond that doesn't earn interest unless its reinvested after the 50 years is up.

Errr, life + 50 years no?

[QuantumG]

Is this just a case of really poor journalism or is there some provision of UK copyright law that foreits the life of the author in the duration of copyright when they transfer the ownership of the work or something? Cause I'm looking at the UK copyright act here and it says life + 50 years, and apparently in '97 there was an EU-wide ammendment that made that life + 70 years. I thought this recent news story was about people complaining that they can't have life + 95 years and when their kids grow up they'll ask for life + 125 years, and so on. As for the people who "make their living" from collecting royalties on songs their dear old dad sang back in the 50's, cry me a freakin' river.

Re:Errr, life + 50 years no?

[Andy_R]

Music copyrights are messy, because there is a copyright on the song, and seperately on the performance and recording of the song (called 'mechanical copyright'). If my understanding is correct, Cliff Richard's early work will only be coming out of mechanical copyright. This means a prospective seller of these works would have to pay rights for the songs but not the recordings, in they same way they would if they made cover-versions of the songs.

I believe that our British copyright law was not backdated last itme it was extended, so works recorded before the life + 70 tariff do not get an extension. Oddly enough this was something Hollywood actually lobbied strongly for, as there were quite a lot or films in production that were based on 'just out of copyright' works that would have gone back into copyright (I think this was the case with character of Sherlock Holmes when the previous extension was backdated).

Re:

[QuantumG]

I'd argue that its too long, but yes, I agree with you. Although, this is England we're talking about, the place where lordships and royal families are seen as standard fair.

The singing nobility?

*shudder*

On that note...

[Bogtha]

Brits here should check out the petition for private copying [pm.gov.uk] on 10 Downing Street's website. It's essentially asking that the government do what the think tank suggested.

Re:

[D-Cypell]

Prime Minister's Aid: Tony Tony.... hundreds of thousands of people from the British public, you know, the people that actually voted you and your two-faced party into power in the first place are lining the streets telling you not to get involved in an unjust and poorly thought out war in Iraq... what should we do prime minister

Tony Blair: Fuck em, George says "Go Go Go!".... just give 'em all free Cliff Richards Music or something. That should shut them up!

Hark..

[D-Cypell]

If you listen really really carefully, you can hear a faint cheer from the 2 people that A) listen to Cliff Richard and Jethro Tull and B) have mastered P2P music sharing.

Re:

[wes33]

I'm surprised that their nurses put up with having to work the keyboard for them ...

This is actually very important

[jesterzog]

If you listen really really carefully, you can hear a faint cheer from the 2 people that A) listen to Cliff Richard and Jethro Tull and B) have mastered P2P music sharing.

Exactly. And this is why the likes of Jethro Tull and Cliff Richard, Disney, and other prominent copyright holders, should not be allowed to be the excuse for across-the-board extensions in copyright terms. They only own a tiny niche of the entire copyright-able work that's out there, and making massive changes just so a small minority

So, which is it?

[Frosty Piss]

The write-up says that surveys say the UK public supports extending copyrights. But then he says in reference to the MPs refusing to extend copyrights: "Looks like the government is realizing that the public are the ones that vote 'em in or out."

So, which is it?

Re:So, which is it?

[mccalli]

The write-up says that surveys say the UK public supports extending copyrights. But then he says in reference to the MPs refusing to extend copyrights: "Looks like the government is realizing that the public are the ones that vote 'em in or out."...so which is it?

The survey in question is a beautiful piece of work, which never actually asked the question "how long do you think copyright should be?". Instead, the question offered was "Do you think UK artists should be afforded the same protection as US artists?". To which my answer would be "yes, but..." meaning that US copyright should be reduced to 50 years, not UK extended to 95.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:So, which is it?

[s7uar7]

It was a recording industry survey that came up with the 'UK public supports extending copyright' statistic. I imagine it was worded along the lines of, 'should copyright be extended beyond 50 years or should pre-school children be forced to work down mines?

Oh save us, Cliff Richards, the people's poet!

[hemp]

Oh save us, Cliff Richards, the people's poet!

Copyright Extensions are Theft

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The pro-copyright crowd loves to scream "theft" when the crime is technically copyright infringement and even though a person has a new copy, the original copy owner hasn't lost possession of his copy.

But here I think "theft" is the right term.

These works were published and purchased under the terms of copyright at the time - that after a specified number of years ownership would transfer to the public domain - we would all own it.

When copyrights are unilaterally extended, as has been the case many times recently, the public is deprived of the ownership that they were promised under the original agreement. In this case, we have something that is tangibly missing - public ownership of the work and I think that fits the definition of theft far better than making copies does.

Re:Copyright Extensions are Theft

[SinGunner]

damnit. i wanted to rate this up, but 5 is the max. where's the (Score:6, Really Insightful) option?

Re:

[ottffssent]

You're absolutely right. Retroactive copyright extension is unconstitutional by definition [monkeysushi.net]. Article 1, section 8 is very clear:

The Congress shall have Power...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

Goal: promote the progress... And method: secure exclusive rights. Not the other way around.

This does not apply to UK copyrights in general

[tverbeek]

This applies only to music recordings, not to copyrights in general. For other works (such as the musical compositions and lyrics themselves), the rule in the UK is that copyrights last for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Although the recordings of the Beatles' early recordings may become PD in the UK in 2013, even if Paul were to choke on a stalk of brocolli tomorrow morning, all those Lennon-McCartney compositions would still be copyrighted until 2077, and until then you wouldn't be able to make copies of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" without paying composition royalties to... well... Michael Jackson, I guess.

Promotional Considerations

[Doc Ruby]

I hope the lawmakers eventually realize how much that fair use contributes to the value of the content. How content's value after a generation, when pop can pass into folk (or disappear), is created at least as much by the people sharing it as by the people creating it.

And I hope they then consider the American founders who created an artificial monopoly "to promote progress in science and the useful arts" as temporary, a concession of some freedom to the reality of capitalism. The reality of 1700s capitalism, which took a lot longer for inventors to recoup their risky investment than in the Internet Age.

Then, I hope, they recognize that the past couple of centuries of promoting progress in science and the useful arts have created a world where copyrights can last even less than the original 17 years, a human generation. And even carve out exceptions to copyright that not only accommodate freedom and less risky investments in invention, but serve to promote, rather than retard, that progress.

Useful innovation in copyright law. That would promote progress.

Push polling...

[conradp]

The fact that this was an online poll means that it's not scientific, the results totally depend on what sites they put the question on and what sorts of people decided to respond.

Also the way the question was phrased:

should [UK recording artists] be protected for the same number of years as their American counterparts?

is a blatantly biased way of asking the question. Sounds like they wanted to drum up some phony polls to present to parliament, and it sounds like they're not buying it.

Copyright registry

[Ignatius]

I think that, by default, all information should go to the public domain after a fairly short period of, say 5 years after publication. The duration has to be less than the typical half-life period of the media and data formats involved, otherwise stuff can too easily get lost before it gets legal to shift to and distribute in current data formats. After all, getting more stuff eventually into the public domain IS the stated purpose of copyright law.

If someone wishes to retain copyright privileges for a longer time, say up to 25 years after publication, which is half the current limit and more than enough to allow the author (in reality: the media companies) for reasonable compensation, then it should be required to submit the work in a specified digital format to a public database which is there to make sure that the work is readily available to the public after the copyright has expired.

The cost for such a database could be covered by a yearly fee from the copyright holders. After all, they get a prolonged state sanctioned monopoly over the work at the expense of everyone else. It's only fair for society to expect something in return. Also, the existence of such a database would greatly simplify the resolvment of legal issues in the enforcement of the granted monopoly.

It's 50 years for the recording not the song

[mustrum_ridcully]

The BPI (UK equivalent of RIAA) must be over the moon about the FUD surrounding this issue.

All the 50 year rule concerns is the copyright of the SOUND RECORDING and the money the PERFORMERS and COMPANIES get.

The WRITERS of the lyrics and music will still have copyright on the lyrics and music.

Taking the example of Move It sung by Cliff Richard and if it was played on the radio or bought in a shop.

In 2006
Song writer - gets money
Music writer - gets money
Singer - gets money
Muscians - get money

In 2008 (when the recording copyright runs out)
Song writer - gets money
Music writer - gets money
Singer - gets nothing
Musicians - get nothing

Seems fair enough to me...

Re:

[bky1701]

I would hope to god not. Then they would have perpetual, never-ending copyright (because even after the person is long dead someone will own the rights and want to keep them. See lord of the rings) on anything currently copyrighted right now. It's like the wet dream of the *IA*'s to have that.

Re:

[QuantumG]

Making copyright owners apply for renewal every 10 years, and pay a fee at that time is one of the better ideas for copyright reform. Not only will it make people actually think about whether or not it is worth keeping something out of the public domain, but it will also make it a lot easier to keep a registar of copyright works.

Re:

[FooAtWFU]

The abuse scenario is something like this: Small-time artist/singer/novelist/programmer creates something (a book, a song, a painting, a program), can't really manage to do much with it... but later a generic Big Bad Entity comes along, snaps it up, rips it off, makes a few million.

Ultimately, if the fee is high, then it's really an undue burden on all but the largest companies, while if it's low, the larger companies can ignore it. $10,000 to renew the copyrights on "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"? Nothing at all

Re:

[QuantumG]

If you can't make money from it then it shouldn't be under copyright. That's the purpose of copyright, to give people a monetary incentive to create new works.

Re:

[PCM2]

If you can't make money from it then it shouldn't be under copyright. That's the purpose of copyright, to give people a monetary incentive to create new works.

I disagree. You're falling into the trap of viewing all of society through the lens of economics, which is a ploy that a great many politicians have foisted upon us but does not reflect the realities of human existence.

I have personally registered copyrighted works that I make available for everyone to look at on the Web, for free, from which I

Re:

[karmatic]

$100 to renew the copyright on a really cool piece of artwork that an aspiring artist has created? That's probably more than he spent on the materials!

Copyright is about providing incentives to produce work, and it does so by providing them a period of exclusivity (generally) in order for them to make money selling their works. Without an exclusive right to copy for some period of time, others could easily sell and copy the works, leaving the author without money.

As such, if the author is selling copies of

Re:

[Andy_R]

There is no renewal of copyright under British law.

We do have one exception though, Peter Pan not only never grows up, he never goes out of copyright either. This is because there was a massive public outcry when London's biggest childrens's hospital was threatening to close if they lost the income from Peter Pan, the rights to which the author bequeathed to the hospital in his will.

Re:

[tverbeek]

That's not a true copyright, however. Parliament merely granted the Great Ormond Street Hospital perpetual royalties on Peter Pan. They do not have the right to grant/deny permission to perform the play or to create derivative works (at least after 2007), as a true copyright would give them. It's really more of a Peter tax, earmarked for GOSH.

Re:WhoTF?

[Trespass]

That was a direct quote from Lars Ulrich from when Tull got the Grammy everyone thought Metallica would get, dude. There's some kind of weird poetic justice here.

Re:

[Trespass]

The seed drill, actually. Instead of broadcasting seed by hand, it always placed seeds a set distance in the ground, increasing yield substantially. I suppose it has vaguely suggestive connotations...

Re:

[pthisis]

Jethro Tull is somewhat well known 60s band

They started in the 60s, but had their biggest hits in the 1970s and a Grammy for best hard rock/heavy metal album in the mid/late 1980s (I'd guess 1987). Grammys are certainly no measure of talent, but by both critical acclaim and album sales they're more of a 1970s prog rock/1980s hard rock band than a 60s band.

Also, "somewhat" well known might be a bit of an understatement; having more than one #1 album in the USA (more in the UK) puts you pretty solidly in the

Re:

[yvanthegreat]

I always thought that the whole idea of copyright law was basically to make sure that people who create things (...) have the opportunity to profit from their time and effort.

Not at all... copyright law was invented by the printing press, to make sure another company would not print (copy) something very cheap, while the first one had paid money to buy the manuscript. The whole story about intellectual rights was just to make it sound better.

I don't say that intellectual rights are always bad, but in the

Re:Probably being naive here.

[Artifakt]

Various studies have shown that a book or film usually makes over 90% of its overally money within a year of release. Music is a bit less likely to drop off that sharply, but it's not much better, and new technology, such as re-releasing LPs as CDs, may have caused much of the extension we see in the curve there. Even there, most of the money is made in the firt year, and the 90% margin is usually reached within 3 years.
        One estimate I've seen is that going from the U.S.'s current Life+70 copyright to completely unlimited will have no effect at all on over 98% of author's estates, and the remaining small percentage will see a modest average 3% average additional income. An author who banks a modest 5% of his income for posterity at the time he or she makes it can take advantage of compound interest and much less inflated money to easly beat everything copyright extensions are likely to do for his kids and grand kids by a factor of at least two orders of magnetude. Statistically, only about three artists from the 20th century are likely to see significant potential profits more than 70 years from their deaths. Since we already have J.R.R. Tolkien, Steven King, and George Lucas, what's with those musicians, film-makers and writers who seem convinced they are also one of that tiny elite fraction? At best, a lot more of them are deluded than right. For them, a clue - just because you are a better artist than these guys, doesn't mean your work will be more commercial than theirs 70 years after your death - in fact it practically precludes it.

        The price authors, musicians, and others pay for that slight chance of bettering their great-great-grand children's lives by a bit? "Life plus" can't be treated as the transfer of a natural right to copy, as no one has a natural right to copy after they die. So now, copyright isn't based on one of those "inallienable rights" that come from "Nature and Nature's God", as the US founding fathers so quaintly put it - instead, it's a right the government manufactures from nothing by politically divine fiat. Ergo, the government can now take away what they have created, with no legal principles to require any checks or balances. If copyright is later shortened, the government has already laid all the necessary groundwork for the claim the additional time (and control over publication) reverts to the government, and not to the people.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyrights are all national. There's no such thing as an international copyright. There are, OTOH, agreements between countries where if a person gets a copyright in Country A, he will automatically also get one in Country B.

So yes, it is possible for Mickey Mouse to go out of copyright in the UK but still be in copyright in the US. In fact, for Peter Pan, the inverse situation exists; here in the US, it's in the public domain, but in the UK it's (very stupidly) still copyrighted.

I'm under the impression th

Re:

[tverbeek]

The paperwork needn't be complex or costly, but it is important that it exists so that we can limit copyright to only those works where the creator bothered to ask for one.

Like it or not, that idea's dead in the water. While registration used to be required in certain minor jurisdisctions (e.g. the U.S.) the terms of the Berne Convention require that "formalities" of this sort be abolished. The U.S. dropped them in '78.

Re:

[MysteriousPreacher]

On behalf of my client, I am serving you with a cease and desist order for illegally reproducing the following lyrics

"The times they are a-changing".

As you are aware, artists rely on the income from their work and they deserve to be rewarded for it.