»

[Stripey]

Sound Copyright | Don't Let the Record Labels Break Their Promise

"A handful of major record labels are trying to break a fifty year-old promise. Musicians and their fans will not be the only victims."

[Jan Deal]

I think extending a song's copyright past 50 years is ridiculous, the only people who benefit from this seem to be the record companies...

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Jan Deal

I think extending a song's copyright past 50 years is ridiculous, the only people who benefit from this seem to be the record companies...

And Cliff Richard.

[Jan Deal]

Originally Posted by Chris

And Cliff Richard.

Don't get me started again on Cliff Richard, the cunt.

[Me and Parvati]

Originally Posted by Jan Deal

I think extending a song's copyright past 50 years is ridiculous, the only people who benefit from this seem to be the record companies...

And the artist who recorded the track. Songwriters are already covered.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Me and Parvati

And the artist who recorded the track. Songwriters are already covered.

50 years of royalties just isn't enough for some people I suppose.

Most people affected by this will be in their 70's by now, or dead. If they are still earning royalties after 50 years they are likely to have a pretty good financial situation anyway.

Isn't it pretty miserly to spend the last years of your life collecting profits and preventing anyone from sharing or sampling your work?

This is absolutely about the record companies greed.

[jester1470]

Originally Posted by Stripey

50 years of royalties just isn't enough for some people I suppose.

Most people affected by this will be in their 70's by now, or dead. If they are still earning royalties after 50 years they are likely to have a pretty good financial situation anyway.

Isn't it pretty miserly to spend the last years of your life collecting profits and preventing anyone from sharing or sampling your work?

This is absolutely about the record companies greed.

To be fair if you wrotye a song when you were 20 and still getting the proceeds after 50 years then well done for writing soemthing that has managed to endure and the chances are the proceeds will be small so I think fairplay then you should get the money, a collection of small royalties through the years might be all you actually get 10 years after your success, especially if we're talking about the 50's and 60's a time when artists may not have received the same sort of royalty deals they make now. I reckon the fairer way would be 50 years or 10 years after the death of the writer (if they live to cover the first 40 years) allowing the musicians to get the fruits of their labour for their lifetime, but not allowing the copyright to go on indefinitely. Of course, maybe a better idea would be all copyrights revert to the artist after 30 years allwoing people to have control of their own work and the record companies not to profit as much.

[Stupot]

It's not record companies who profit loads, it's the publishers. A record company might get a point or two, but the publisher gets 50%. Of course, in the case of the majors, the record company and the publisher are often the same beast.
Copyright shouldn't go on indefinetely. I think 50 years or death is about right in the case of songwriters but there's a case for a shorter span for publishers.
Nowadays, the world is full of people who think they should get everything for nothing.
If you sample or cover a record for profit then you should pay the writer royalties. It's basic honesty. If you don't, then you're no better than a thief. You can't just help yourself to someone's car, can you?
It's not as if royalties are extortionate. It's 6.5% of the retail. So on a disc of covers going for £10 the royalty is 6.5p per disc. And a sample of a few seconds costs even less.
If you're using samples or covering a song for the joy of it and not making money out of it, then fine. I don't think you should have to pay royalties for it.
If you're playing the song or sample at a live event, you don't pay royalties anyway- the venue does.

I think they should extend the copyright for another hundred years or so.

I'd hate to see all my favourite geriatric popstars going hungry, and being so skinny that they couldn't fit into their clothes.

[Stripey]

Extending the 50 year period so that the companies can make profits, even after the artist might be dead, is morally reprehensible.

Look at for example how a small sample of one obscure record by The Winstons led to so much new music through the Amen break - Opening up recordings after 50 years has the potential to stimulate that kind of growth, creativity and innovation again.
Of course, underground producers are going to sample with impunity as they always have, but it is a shame to imagine inventive new music never being able to be released because a tiny arist/label can't afford to clear samples.