Posted on 12/03/2006 10:34:53 AM PST by dogbyte12
LONDON -- When British Finance Minister Gordon Brown stands up to make his prebudget speech next week, aging rockers Cliff Richard, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones might do well to tune in.
Not normally the stuff of rock 'n' roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music-industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free for all to use.
The British government commissioned Andrew Gowers, former editor of the Financial Times newspaper, to review all areas of intellectual property law, including challenges thrown up by the consumption of music and film over the Internet, and he is seen as unlikely to recommend a copyright extension.
appears more swayed by the right of consumers to access music cheaply, or, if it is 50 years old, essentially for free, than by old performers seeking protection.
Commentators also point out that the 50-year sound-recording cover is standard in most European countries (not to mention Canada), and Britain would be unlikely to want to stand alone by extending it.
Richard has led the way in highlighting the issue, with his first hit, Move It!, from 1958, perilously close to the cutoff point for copyright protection.
More significantly for record labels who do a lucrative trade in remastering and repackaging old hits, the Beatles catalogue could be up for grabs from 2012 and 2013, including early hits like Love Me Do and I Want to Hold Your Hand.
Then come the Shadows and the Rolling Stones, to name but a few.
In 2005, Elvis Presley's record label rereleased his British No. 1 hits over consecutive weeks to cash in ahead of the deadline.
David Arnold, who composed the scores for four James Bond movies, argues that the 50-year copyright limit discriminates against performers and record companies.
"I don't think anyone involved in music's creation can understand how, after a certain amount of time, it stops being yours and starts being everyone else's," he told Reuters.
"We need to do the groundwork so there is an element of protection for artists and record companies who take a risk with an artist," he added. "That's if we value the entertainment industry and value music in our society."
Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years.
In the United States, copyright protection is 95 years.
Industry bodies such as the British Phonographic Industry argue that the failure to extend protection on old hits will jeopardize investment in future talent.
Emma Pike, chief executive of the British Music Rights group, sides with the BPI, but says the Gowers review raises broader issues for music and film in the 21st century.
"Sales of legitimate music downloads are growing exponentially . . . but the overall picture globally is still one of decline," she said.
"There is a statistic that 80 per cent [of Internet music download traffic] is illegal and 20 per cent legal, so we have an enormous amount of work to do, and the music industry simply can't do it on its own."
I know that somebody playing sha-boom, doo woppity wop 50 years later really isn't thinking about the poor suffering grandkids of the esteemed author, but perhaps they should.
Without going into detail, somebody who is a friend of the family was the son of an inventor of something that everybody has in the household. He inherited a little money from it, but that patent has gone long by the way side. Why should the inventor of the electric razor, the microwave, the color tv have less protection than people who write songs for a living?
95 years in the US is amazing. Put that into perspective. You were born in 1889 and are 23 and you write a song in 1912. You have a kid that year. Your kid has your grandchild in 1935. Then your great grandkid is born in 1963. He has a child in 1982. Your great great grandkid, you get to see just before you pass away. In 2002, he has your great great great grandkid. All the earlier relatives die. It is now 2006, you want to play that 94 year old song, you better pay this baby. He has got bills.
I believe that the owners of that song went to restaurants and demanded money because the waiters and waitresses would sing it?
They did. My beef is with the double standard. Inventors and drug companies should get the same deal as musicians. Period.
As I understand it, the copyright protection in the US was recently raised from 75 years to 95 years, because of pressure from Disney. The Mickey Mouse character was getting perilously close to the public domain.
But you are correct, there is a double standard, a patent is for 17 years and a copyright is for 95 in the US.
So, you cure cancer, and 17 years later tough luck. But, you make Herbie the Love Bug and your great grandkids get paid for it 90 years later.
Good. Perhaps if the Brits get some STONES, they'll deport all those muslims BEFORE they gain enough political power to take over the bloody place.
What?
They already have?
never mind.
95 years is ridiculous, and was brought about by bribery from the entertainment industry (just exercising their free speech rights in this Bribocracy we live in). This poor artist line is just crap. As to why an inventor shouldn't be allowed to hold a perpetual patent, it is to spread the benefits of technology. If the family of the guy who invented aspirin still held the patent aspirin would cost a dollar a pill. Within a complicated piece of equipment there might be dozens or hundreds of patents, each one demanding a bite from the inventor and manufacturer.
The Stones are all still alive, albeit not all there--once Mick Jagger and Keith Richards die (since they did virtually all the songwriting), it would be fifty to 95 years before the music becomes public domain...
Most all the Beatles songs were written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon together. Lennon has been dead almost thirty years, but Paul McCartney is still alive (unless you believe the conspiracies that he died in 67 and they put an impostor in his place), only a few songs were written by George Harrison, and he's only been dead a few years, and Ringo Starr is still alive, also wacko Jacko bought rights to the Beatle's music library (which means he has rights on the royalties as well).. As long as Paul McCartney is still alive, anything written by him and Lennon together will be protected for 50 years past McCartney's death. Anything Harrison wrote won't be public domain till the year 2053 under the old law, and regardless of McCartney or Starr's life expectancy, as long as the King of Pop is still alive plus fifty more years past (under the current law in Britain), copyrights of the Beatles music is protected...
the crux of this is, fifty (or 95) years past death...
The way I understand it, this isn't the case in the UK. It's 50 years after publication. That is why the Stones catalogue from the early years is about to hit the free domain.
Things published here are treated differently.
50 was chosen when people didn't live that long and certainly weren't still on world tour by then. Now 60 is middle aged and not even eligible for early retirement. Change the 50 to 75 at least.
It's funny: African governments are probably going to violate the patents for anti-AIDS medicines to make unlicensed generic versions, but the copyrighted music of rock stars from the Live-AID concert will be honored. Shows you what people really think of the relative worth between a patent for a medicine and a copyright for a rock song.
This will also force the music industry and musicians to get off their collective butts and come up with new music rather than living off their past achievements.
The Stones off all bands don't need copyright protection anyway. Even in their 90's they will make more money from people attending their concerts and buying their concert videos, CD's, etc. then they would lose from royalties.
Not to worry. No one will be playing their music much longer. Have you ever been to a wild dance party where everyone was tripping over their walkers and canes!
Wow. The British people all get free gallstones. How lucky can they get? :-)
I do see the problem for some artists. Control of their work is important. For example, if you are an 80 year old artist now wearing Depends, you don't necessarily want to hear your song in a Depends commercial. It's not just about money, but about control as well.
It's not the radio stations that will be the issue. All these songs will be on ads, the Stones and Beatles ones that is.
Let's Spend the Night Together will probably be for a Seniors cruise. Help from the Beatles will be used in a medic alert ad.
Personally, I think U.S. copyright should return to it's original lifespan of 14 years with the privilege of renewal for term of 14 years for ALL materials, books, music, movies, software, etc. After one renewal, those materials should then revert to public domain status.
Thats some good thinkin' there!
Yes!!
And ,on a different note,we were better off when lawyers didn't advertise on radio and tv.
Look how many activities no longer exist because of liabilty woories.
A world with no sharp edges will have no sharp people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.