Jump to content
aberdeen-music

copyright term extension


Stripey
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steven Dedalus

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Most songwriters would be happy that their music was sampled, particularly being used in a completely new way that breathed fresh life into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not let drug addicts walk into your house and steal your food and drive your car anytime they like without let or hinderance. Oh wait, they already do. Well done kenny macaskill.

I don't own a car, so I'm not sweating it. There's always food that gets thrown out so at least it would be getting used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some are missing the point here, they're not talking about the writers copyright, they're talking about the publishers and the artists who recorded the song. The songwriters copyright lasts for some 70 years after their death, so the family can continue to receive something for the work. Don't forget that many of the artists who had hits in the 50s and 60s neither wrote their own material or lasted too long as 'stars', but if their record still gets played, they still get a few bob every now and then. Remember that for every Elvis or Cliff there were 20 Twinkles.

And I'll let you off with the idea that by the time you're 70 you'll be pretty well set up... Aye, right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...