Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

536 comments

Just leave the civilians alone (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377780)

Keep copyright where it belongs: a regulation on businesses. It makes no difference what the term is if they leave home users alone.

Re:Just leave the civilians alone (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377790)

But home taping is killing music!

Incentivise (5, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377816)

Yes, we must redouble our efforts to incentivise John Lennon to produce more new music.

Re:Incentivise (5, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377860)

Hmm. Do you think it's a conspiracy to keep Yoko from needing the money and start singing again? Are we safe with 70 years? Japanese women live for ages.

Re:Incentivise (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377890)

Not if you drop a nuke on them.

Not necessarily... (1, Offtopic)

denzacar (181829) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378032)

Not if you drop a nuke on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Maidens [wikipedia.org]

Also, you're an asshole. Possibly a racist asshole, definitely a stupid one.

Re:Not necessarily... (2, Interesting)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378150)

Racist? Come on buddy, do you even know what racism is? Irrational horseshit claims of racism for any remark about a nationality is the number one indicator of being a whiny bastard. Insensitive, sure. Racist? Hardly. Racist would be saying that the radiation from the nukes probably made them in to the inferior sub-human creatures they are today.

Racism is so overplayed.

Re:Not necessarily... (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378240)

"The right to offend is more important than the right to not be offended" - Rowan Atkinson

Fun fact: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378074)

Germany does not have the concept of copyright.
It has "Urheberrecht". (Which the organized crime loves to confuse with copyright.)
Urheberrecht is like author's right. And you can't give it away. If you made something, you have that right, nobody else, and nobody else ever will, even if you want it, and even if you sign it away. (That contract would be invalid.)

Also, nobody gives a fuck anymore about what those criminals think they can hallucinate-up to further their protection racket.
They are criminals, and I treat them as such.

The last time they tried to put up a propaganda stand at our main train station, I ripped off their posters, took the megaphone, and made people chase them out of the place.
The next time I'll not be so nice.

Re:Incentivise (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378170)

Europe is batshit insane anyway with "artists".

Now, if you had a work of the painted kind, it goes for sale in auction, a percentage has to go to the original artist. Each and every time (may be just Germany, or EU wide).

They totally bought into the arteeest mythos and bullshit.

Re:Incentivise (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378220)

I believe that for the last couple decades John Lennon has not been composing any new songs. In fact I hear a rumor that he's actually de-composing.

And then 90 years, and then... (1)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377820)

Why not just extend it to years and be done with it?

Re:And then 90 years, and then... (1)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377846)

Infinite years I mean. Slashdot didn't seem to understand the sideways-8 symbol.

Re:And then 90 years, and then... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378112)

If it ain't ASCII, it's not good enough for Slashdot.

Re:And then 90 years, and then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378222)

How about 0/0 to represent infinity in ASCII?

Re:And then 90 years, and then... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378286)

See how the smileys are written like this: :-) :-), it shows the correct orientation to read the text on ASCII displays. So infinity symbol is simply written as 8. How do you write the numeral eight, you might ask. Please sit down, as it might come as a shock. For most people in the world, 8 IS infinity.

Re:And then 90 years, and then... (5, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378260)

I can't speak for the EU, but at least in the US, the legal thinking is that you can't make it indefinite due to the U.S. Constitution ("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"). Unfortunately, the Supremes seem to think that any number is fine...so yes, 90 years or 100,000 years would theoretically be fine, as long as it is not "infinity".

In other news, the legal system is completely retarded.

Slackers (5, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377822)

Announcing the ruling, the council of the European Union said: "Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime.

"Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes."

Just get a job like the rest of us

Re:Slackers (5, Insightful)

qzjul (944600) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377884)

Or.... make more good music? Wasn't that the purpose of copyright in the first place?

Re:Slackers (2)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377922)

Maybe they should just be assigned an accountant to help them INVEST their money made at their peak. If they didn't make enough, then yes, get a job. It's rather sad that you can do nothing in life and complain about it, then have people sympathize with you about it to the point of giving you a larger allowance to do nothing.

Re:Slackers (2, Insightful)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377956)

Oh right. Like you aren't going to continue to get paid for the work you're doing now through your elderly years. Why shouldn't artists be entitled to the same thing ditch diggers and chimney sweeps get?

Re:Slackers (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378068)

Ditch diggers and chimney sweeps pay into retirement plans - they don't continue to get paid for having dug that ditch/cleaned that chimney for the rest of eternity, combined with some uninvolved company continuing to be allowed to collect money for that chimney having been swept years and decades after their deaths.

By all means, I fully support the idea of artists being allowed to pay into retirement plans, and even encourage that they do so. It will help them deal with that income gap at the end of their lives that ditch diggers and chimney sweeps face when they're too old to be able to continue digging ditches and sweeping chimneys.

Meanwhile, if they're not actually doing anything before then, maybe the artists should try to get a job? It's what ditch diggers and chimney sweeps who are out of work do.

Where is this socialist-communist utopia... (5, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378152)

... you live in located? I'd like to emigrate there.

A place where a ditch digger keeps getting payed continuously through the decades, for all those ditches he dug in the past 70 years?
Sign me up for citizenship! I'll even bring my own shovel.

Re:Slackers (0)

fredrated (639554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378284)

"Like you aren't going to continue to get paid for the work you're doing now through your elderly years."

Wow, I didn't know this was possible, please explain. My boss has no intention of paying me "through [my] elderly years" but if there is a way to make him pay up I would sure like to know how.

Re:Slackers (-1, Flamebait)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377974)

They have jobs, you freaking moron. Do you think it's easy making money in the music business? Do you think it doesn't involve hard work? Perhaps you also think that being a professional musician would be as simple as recording a garage album and then kicking back while members of the public send you checks for millions of dollars -- if only it weren't for those greedy fatcat record labels that provide no worthwhile or necessary services and do nothing but leech?

There seems to be a lot of ignorance packed into that nine-word sentence you typed.

Re:Slackers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378196)

The have a job, they've been getting paid for that job for 50 years. Now the time is up and they're not being paid for the work they did 50 years ago any more. If they want to get paid more, they need to do more work. That's a better deal than I get with my job. I get paid for the work I did this month, this month. But as soon as I stop working, I stop getting paid.

Re:Slackers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378288)

The problem with what you've said is that you're implying that the extended copyright term will in some way benefit these artists, despite your own claim that the greedy fatcat record labels do nothing but leech. (Which I do agree with - they generally seem to serve no other purpose than to stifle new talent that they don't own, and rip off the talent that they do own.)

The income gap at the end of their lives however, is partly because of those same executives, who will not be forwarding any additional monies to the artists in question - they (the recording labels) own the work, and unless the artist is extremely lucky in court, the artist is unlikely to see a penny from it. Extending copyright will not solve this problem, it will only provide further lawsuit fuel for the various recording label associations to pursue the fans of the artists to obtain "fair payment for the artist", without sending a single penny of that money to the artist it was supposedly collected in the name of, just like they already do now.

Re:Slackers (4, Insightful)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378020)

If it's that much of a concern, why not change the copyright length to max(50, artist.lifetime)?

Re:Slackers (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378102)

Anti-copyright people at this time think more like economists. We look at incentives, rather than goals. The incentive in the situation you describe is for people to kill off artists so they can have all their stuff for free. That is a perverse incentive.

Yes, if you must (5, Insightful)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378130)

As other posters have noted, the original point of copyright was never to guarantee someone a lifetime income.

That said, if this is the new purpose, then change copyright to exceed 60 years if and only if the copyright has been continuously in the possession of the musician from the start. There is zero need for companies to have an extended copyright. Of course, we all know that's what it's really about...

Re:Slackers (3, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378182)

This law shouldn't take effect retroactively. It's making me want to say "fuck the system". I've already bought a couple of Beatles albums legally, but I should probably just download the rest out of spite (and justice).

Re:Slackers (5, Insightful)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378050)

More to the point:

1. Most people face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes.
2. Record label execs, who don't face such a gap, are the ones who will actually benefit from this.

Re:Slackers (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378084)

Just get a job like the rest of us

I cannot emphasize how insightful this is.

The thing is, most of us get paid for the work we do, but no more. If we want to get paid more, guess what? We have to work more.

But not the artists! No, once they create something, apparently, they are entitled to get paid for it the rest of their lives, and then once they die, their children get paid for it, and their children's children. Or more likely, the company that distributed it gets paid indefinitely for it.

What's left out of these conversations is this: They got paid for what they were doing when they were doing it. Why didn't they do what the rest of us normal folks have to do, save up money in a retirement plan? After all, once I retire, I certainly don't expect my company to keep paying me for the work I'm doing today, let alone the company I worked for 20 years ago to keep paying me for those Windows 3.1 PCs I set up and repaired at the time. No, instead, I contribute regularly to my 401k plan so that once I do get older, I don't have to depend on still getting paid for work I did 50 years before.

Meanwhile, by extending the copyright, they are denying our society our cultural heritage. I can't share with kids of today what music was like back in my youth because it's irrevocably locked up by copyrights until well after I'll be dead. Everyone keeps forgetting that the purpose of copyrights is not to guarantee artists an income for a lifetime. It is, at least according to the U.S. Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." How does this possibly promote the progress of science and useful arts? Do people honestly think that a 25-year-old is not going to create works of art because they're worried about it falling into the public domain when they're 75 years old instead of 95? That's ridiculous.

Re:Slackers (1, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378194)

Really? Cause if I write a piece of software I can sell it more then once. Its almost as if creating something is different then doing work others pay you to do.

Re:Slackers (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378218)

I can't share with kids of today what music was like back in my youth because it's irrevocably locked up by copyrights until well after I'll be dead.

You don't have the albums? You could also try Spotify, though I don't think the Beatles are on there.

Re:Slackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378304)

For those of us who aren't rich and famous, our royalties range from a few dollars to a thousand or two.....but that only gets renewed for an additional year or so.

I don't disagree we shouldn't keep working...it's hard to find work. Copyright for me protects the other party from outright abusing my creations for their hundreds of thousands of dollars in gross revenue.

The fact is, I wish my clients would buy my work for tens of thousands of dollars at fair market price, but 99% of them choose a 1-2 year license at affordable few hundred dollars.

Is 95-year extension ridiculous? Yes. But I doubt my images of a kid eating Ritz crackers will add to the social narrative....And if it does, I usually give exceptions to educational/ art use of my images. I believe in Fair Use.

Re:Slackers (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378118)

The real translation here:
"The music industry prefers their stars young and naive about the business, so they don't realize how much they're getting screwed by their labels. And because we like to cast off our acts before they're 30, we'll use the fact that they're broke by the time they're 70 as a way to build support for giving us copyrights for longer."

The solutions, for musicians are:
1. Don't sign with a label. Many musicians have made it without one, and those who have signed with one generally consider them to be a really bad deal.
2. Continue making new music throughout your adult life. If you're a musician, that should be what you want to be doing anyways.
3. Promote sharing music as a way of building up your fan base. The Grateful Dead did it, MC Frontalot did it, you can do it too.
4. Did I mention that you shouldn't sign with a label?

Re:Slackers (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378254)

Revise the copyright laws to make sure that copyright can't be transferred from the creator and that the creator always must be a person.

And there are two kinds of copyright violations - the home copier which is relatively harmless and the commercial interest that uses a well-known tune for making an ad - which may be insulting the creator severely.

Imagine Neo-nazis using Michael Jackson songs to promote them.

Re:Slackers (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378176)

Announcing the ruling, the council of the European Union said: "Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime.

"Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes."

Just get a job like the rest of us

Very true, but more to the point, only very crappy one-hit wonder performers are "struggling" with an income gap. Anyone else has absolutely ZERO excuse. Sorry, but the average person will not relate to the "woes" of said entertainers as we watch them blow through more money in a weekend partying than most people earn all year, and then cry poor 10 years later. It is certainly not our fault that an entertainers ability to actually save their money sucks as bad as their mainstream pop music.

I'm all for patent/copyright/trademark reform, but "poor broke entertainer" is one seriously lame-ass reason to extend copyright.

A Better Way (5, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378272)

There is a better way: A yearly commercialization fee. If you want to release a song for sale, you must register it and pay a fee for copyright protection. The first year, the fee is one dollar (or one Euro). For subsequent years, the fee is twice what it was in the previous year. You are free to pay the commercialization fees for as long as you wish. If the commercialization fee is not paid, the work goes into the public domain.

What is the EU council? (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377826)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council [wikipedia.org]

It does this without any formal powers, only the influence it has being composed of national leaders.

Its kind of like the CFR or any number of other groups ... they do run the place, but not directly officially.

Its not their job to actually rewrite the laws to be 70 years or a million years, but it is somewhat likely that what they say should be done, will be done.

Re:What is the EU council? (0)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378018)

You're kind of naive. When the trade bodies in the UK are crowing for 70-year music copyright, what do you think David Cameron is going to do? Put up a brave fight, or fold like Superman on laundry day and complain about how "the EU bureaucracy already made the decision"?

Re:What is the EU council? (3, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378164)

You're kind of naive. When the trade bodies in the UK are crowing for 70-year music copyright, what do you think David Cameron is going to do? Put up a brave fight, or fold like Superman on laundry day and complain about how "the EU bureaucracy already made the decision"?

Not in the least... I think you're missing my point, which is they merely advise, etc. It has formally been resolved that they should do it, not its already been done. The article makes it sound like they've passed it into law and it's going to be enforced at 70 years as of today 9/12/2011. Those not living under the EU boot heel probably don't know "how it works".

Lets try a /. car analogy to help you. Some automobile trade association says we, as a group of automakers, should try to make and sell more SUVs and giant trucks. That's nice that they all agree, golf clap for everyone. However, its up to Government Motors to actually roll em off the assembly line and sell them, and its highly likely they will attempt it and maybe even succeed. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the automobile trade association, in itself, by itself, at that meeting, is turning bolts on the assembly line and closing sales on the showroom floor.

There's a lot more "fun" before its done and over with. Expect plenty of follow up news stories as its actually implemented.

Re:What is the EU council? (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378324)

The article is using the wrong term. It's actually the Council of the European Union [wikipedia.org] that decided this.

Poor Cliff Richard (2)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377832)

He evidentially has run out of money. Should we be sad or disgusted at him? I vote for disgusted.

I am ok with it almost... (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377836)

I am ok with extending the copyright time frame. However if the holder dies so should the copyright.
70 years seems a good frame.

Re:I am ok with it almost... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377892)

Do we really want to incentivize the killing of the holders of valuable copyrights?

Re:I am ok with it almost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377936)

Do we really want to incentivize the killing of the holders of valuable copyrights?

If it's music I don't agree with, then yes.

Re:I am ok with it almost... (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378002)

No silly, corporations are immortal.

Re:I am ok with it almost... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378012)

We already do by giving them copyrights that others can inherit. To avoid the whole messy situation lets just get rid of copyright.

Re:I am ok with it almost... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378088)

Given the greed often exhibited by them? Yes, yes I do.

Re:I am ok with it almost... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378060)

However if the holder dies

The `holder' is a business entity. A `legal fiction' that never dies.

Why, exactly, should the lifespan of an author determine the duration of copyright?

Re:I am ok with it almost... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378310)

The business entity only has distribution rights. The copyright is still owned by the one that produced it.

Re:I am ok with it almost... (1)

SebZero (1051264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378160)

However if the holder dies so should the copyright. 70 years seems a good frame.

That will be the issue in the future around 2031 - now it's the "ageing rockers" that we remember, but soon it'll be their poor, poor children and their estate who will be losing their income

Good! (0)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377848)

Keep that old crap locked up and away from anybody for a long, long time. I've heard it all way too many times. I'd rather have some new indie stuff to listen to. And this extension to the copyright term will hopefully do exactly that.

They can still sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377862)

Should be able to continue to earn? There's nothing stopping THEM from continuing to sell their albums and songs after copyright expiration.

Helps the labels not the artists (5, Informative)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377870)

From TFA

The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.

Can't say I'm a bit surprised. I would hate for record labels to face an income gap toward the end of their lives.

I'm for copyright law (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377876)

But, why an extension to 70 years? Fifty is plenty of time for an artist to reap the rewards of their talents. Plus, I don't think the Stones and Beatles even own the rights to their music from the 60s. Weren't both groups screwed out of their earlier song rights by their managers?

Re:I'm for copyright law (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378030)

Well, given the current life expectancy of about 80 years, and how a musician's career is basically over by the time they're ten years old, obviously they need 70 years of protection to live off the income.

Re:I'm for copyright law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378070)

Do the average musicians live to be 80? With all the drugs, sex and rock and roll, I'd think it'd be quite a bit lower.

Re:I'm for copyright law (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378214)

Plus, I don't think the Stones and Beatles even own the rights to their music from the 60s. Weren't both groups screwed out of their earlier song rights by their managers?

That's the point--- now those managers are screwing the public out of its rightful inheritance, too.

Re:I'm for copyright law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378236)

Fifty is plenty of time....

Your opinion. My guess is you haven't done anything worth having and they have.

Extension == Theft (5, Insightful)

dwandy (907337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377886)

In this discussion of copyright it's actually appropriate to call it theft.
This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people.

Re:Extension == Theft (2, Insightful)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377978)

+1

Saw a headline somewhere last week that described it as such - "stolen from the public domain"

Re:Extension == Theft (-1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378052)

This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people.

Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines. Authors should only be allowed to make money by reading their books out loud to audiences in theaters. The moment that someone who creates somethings is allowed to decide when and how it can be reproduced, they stop being our pet entertainment slaves, and that is just intolerable.

Re:Extension == Theft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378138)

I'm pretty sure the OP clearly specified that the extension is the theft, not "All copyright". Maybe you missed title...

Re:Extension == Theft (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378142)

And this all or nothing attitude is why there will be no solution in the near term...

Re:Extension == Theft (2)

dwandy (907337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378154)

Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines.

Don't know if you're trolling or if your entire post broke my sarcasm meter, but although I don't agree with Copyright as a good means to an end, it is not theft; it's a deal. (between the public and the artists in theory)
The bit that makes it theft is the retroactive extension. If the increased duration was for new works there would be no theft, but there would be a new deal.
That only one side is really represented at the bargaining table and that all the research (I've seen) suggests that shorter terms would be more beneficial to society isn't really part of this discussion.

Why? (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377894)

I mean, really? What is the effing point of this?

The point of copyright is (or rather, was supposed to be) to grant the creator of a work a time-limited exclusivity on the right to copy that work, so that they could easily publish the work and reap the benefits of that publication (while society also reaps the benefits of the new work being published) without the fear that somebody else might usurp it from them, which might otherwise keep them from publicly releasing their work, and thus depriving society of an artistic creation. If it takes you 70 years to accomplish this, however, or even fifty... heck, arguably anything more than 20, then maybe... just maybe, you're just too effing slow.

Re:Why? (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377938)

The point is to make more money, and they succeeded.

Re:Why? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378266)

The point is to make more money, and they succeeded.

Can you make serious money selling Rolling Stones tracks on itunes? No. I think they're trying to make a political point about who owns our culture (them, not us), not actually make money.

If the Beetles were promoted more heavily than Miley Cyrus, maybe I'd believe it was about the money.

The music industry is about manufacturing and selling "fresh" product. Songs and musicians older than a year or two are marginalized.

Re:Why? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378306)

If they want to make more money, maybe they should try producing more works, instead of just sitting on their laurels trying to get royalties into almost perpetuity on a single work that isn't even culturally relevant anymore.

At some point, keeping copyright exclusive harms society far more than it helps... and there are always diminishing returns for the copyright holder on any individual copyright the later it is after initial publication anyways. The break-even point is unarguably *FAR* less than seven decades.

EU Extends Music Copyright to 90 Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377896)

Why do I expect to see this headline on Slashdot in 20 years time (say Sept. 12, 2031), with the EXACT same article using the EXACT same Mick Jagger quotes?

After last decade... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377904)

After a decade marked by its lack of innovation in music, this is exactly what we don't need.

"aging rockers"? (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377906)

More like their labels.

EU Extends Music Copyright to 90 Years (5, Funny)

Kensai7 (1005287) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377910)

MrSteveSD writes

"The copyright on sound recordings by the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other famous bands was due to expire in the next few years. However, the EU Council has now scuttled any such hopes. The copyright term has been extended from 70 to 90 years with life-supported rockers expressing their delight."

(Slashdot 2031)

Re:EU Extends Music Copyright to 90 Years (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378090)

The copyright term has been extended from 70 to 90 years with life-supported rockers expressing their delight."

The cover of Rolling Stone's article in 2031 has a picture of Kieth Richards and he still looks the same as he did in 2011.

He has requested virgin blood sacrifices and the media companies had just succeeded in getting "Aging Rocker Blood Sacrifice" laws pushed through legislatures everywhere. The Robotic Dick Cheney was the first to sign it into law.

Re:EU Extends Music Copyright to 90 Years (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378156)

Good stuff - You beat us all to the punch... It'll be interesting to see the rationale as the artists all eventually pass on.

business (1)

djfake (977121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377912)

Could someone please explain music copyrights? Is this for mechanical license or for performance?

Re:business (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378054)

Recorded audio. It's separate from the copyright on the actual music, which is owned by the composer or whoever he/she sold it to. Copyright on recorded audio was added with the Rome convention in 1961, when the record companies started realising that people might soon be able to copy records to other media.

Great (4, Funny)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377926)

Good. I was worried about having to take Ringo or Paul in when thy ended up penniless on the street. Being a fan, I couldn't let that happen to them, but we don't really have a lot os space for permanent house guests.

Your cultural riches have just been plundered (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377946)

There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says someone needs to own a song or a movie for 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. It just moves me with great anger to make sure I will do my best to hurt the bottom line of those who think dollar signs are more important than the common property of mankind.

Rules of procedure (5, Informative)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377958)

It's worth noting that the Swedish Pirate Party's MEP tried to get this issue back to the parliament months ago for a new vote (which should be allowed by the parliament's rules of procedure, since the old vote was done by the previous parliament before the last election in 2009 and there are provisions that allow a new vote if the council is too slow in adopting a directive from the parliament and there's an election inbetween), but the parliament's directorate stalled for four months, and then decided, less than 10 days ago, that the rules didn't apply [wordpress.com] in this case after all.

No need to bribe hundreds of parliamentarians when you can just pay off one or two persons in the directorate.

What?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37377960)

Who else gets paid after they retire? I just read something from Roger Daltry who said in 2007 that musicians don't have pensions. Well I'm self-employed and I don't have a bloody pension either because I can't afford to get one! They want control over their compositions? Fair enough. You have 50 years from whence you composed it. After that, the other musicians of the world can play what you've made. If you're not happy with that, then never listen to classical music ever again. You wouldn't be able to if the music control industry was in place earlier in history. /rant

If their income drops after 50 years (2)

Dinghy (2233934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37377990)

If this is being done because people are seeing their income drop after 50 years, then I think they deserved the wake up call that everything they've done for the last 50 years is worthless crap, and maybe they should have learned to save some cash for retirement.

Promoting Creativity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378008)

Good news for us. I'm sure the Beatles only produced the huge array of music they did because they knew that forty years later their copyrights would be extended like this.

This is theft from the public domain! (5, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378016)

Copyrights are supposed to be a bargain where the artist gets a 50 year exclusive right to distribute their work in exchange for releasing the work into the public domain after that term. This is outright theft by the EU from the public domain and we should be making a huge stink about it. If you live in the European Union your culture has just been stolen. Everyone in the EU needs to inundate your representatives with complaints about this because these copyrights have been stolen from each and every one of you!

I'm an aging rocker... (1)

sgage (109086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378022)

... and I'm bloody well not delighted.

Thank God (1)

ShadyG (197269) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378042)

I've been holding off on creating most of my best music because the incentive just wasn't good enough. Now I finally feel my monopoly will be protected long enough to make it worth it.

Now we can get some good music (1)

djchristensen (472087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378058)

I'm glad they made this change. Now musicians will finally have a worthwhile incentive to create good music knowing they can reap the rewards for 70 years. Everyone knows there's been nothing worth listening to in the last 50 years since all the musicians have been holding back their best works for a longer copyright period. This is how copyright is intended to work, right?

I don't even expect to live that long (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378066)

Of-course songs are indestructible, so maybe children of the children's children will have those without copyright? No, of-course not, by that time the copyrights will be for 500 years or the combine lifespan of all 'authors' relatives, whichever is bigger.

Don't listen to Beatles shit (0)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378072)

it's overrated anyway

Just make your own music or learn to play Mozart piano concertos or something

Welcome to Global Fascism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378134)

Welcome to Global Fascism.

Patents vs Copyrights (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378212)

Why is it that copyrights last for such a long time when compared to patents? Is the work done by artists that much mote important that the work done by scientists and engineers?

Forever, on the installment plan. (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378228)

Lessig was so right.

Perpetual copyright is bad (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378270)

Not only is perpetual copyright bad for the myriad of reasons others will state, it's bad because it leads to the loss of cultural heritage. Since there is little economic incentive to preserve and restore old works which you can't obtain rights to, many older recordings of early blues and jazz acts are going to deteriorate to uselessness.

On another note, it's always been funny to me that Disney is one of the biggest proponents of perpetual copyright and yet most of the material for their works throughout the companies history has been public domain works from previous generations.

this is known as... (1)

dogganos (901230) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378278)

the 'Beatles Act'

The arguments, synopsised: (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37378290)

  1. Grasping Geriatrics: Give me stuff.
  2. Grasping Hippies: Give me stuff.

On balance, I'm marginally in favour of the coffin dodgers, since they at least did something creative 50 years ago. On the other side are the mooing masses who can barely a cogent sentence together put.

Anyone who pays their mortgage and their kids' dental bills from creative works, raise your hand. The rest of you, pick our pockets while our hands are up. Not that you need an invitation.

Shame, shame, shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37378328)

that

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...