Beta
×

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!

EU Commissioner Proposes 95 year Copyright

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the infinity-plus-a-kabillion dept.

Music 591

Albanach writes "The European Union Commissioner for the Internal Market has today proposed extending the copyright term for musical recordings to 95 years. He also wishes to investigate options for new levies on blank discs, data storage and music and video players to compensate artists and copyright holders for 'legal copying when listeners burn an extra version of an album to play one at home and one in the car ... People are living longer and 50 years of copyright protection no longer give lifetime income to artists who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties, he said.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sweet! (5, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421694)

That clinches it, I'm moving back to Europe.

Obviously, Crack is cheaper and more plentiful over there.

Re:Sweet! (3, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421870)

Must be, this is crazy. How do artists need to be compensated for making copies of their work? You own the CD, you can copy it, as many times as you want, give/sell it to whoever you want, period. This imaginary property thinking is getting eerily pervasive.. nobody even thinks to question it anymore, even on slashdot.

Re:Sweet! (2, Insightful)

alext (29323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421976)

Because the only way artists get compensated is via copies of their work?

Re:Sweet! (2, Informative)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422038)

-1, disingenuous.

musical artists make their scratch from concerts, not album sales.

Re:Sweet! (3, Insightful)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422142)

musical artists who are signed to a thieving record label make their scratch from concerts, not album sales.

There, FYP for you.

Re:Sweet! (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422220)

No, independent and established music artists both make their scratch from concerts, not album sales.

  Go ask how much Chicago indie bands make at the double door and metro, I assure you they are not scrounging bottom bin for money.

Fixed it for you.

Re:Sweet! (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422244)

A lot who aren't make it the same way too. I've heard several good bands at a local bar I sometimes go to, and after inquiring after the show, learned that they didn't even have CD's for sale, big label or otherwise. Most of these just got their money being paid to play at the bar.

Big name music wouldn't go for that though. That would require that they actually work on a regular basis like the rest of us.

Why? (5, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421716)

Why should anyone get a lifetime income for one thing they created? If they do, why would they bother creating anything else?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421748)

A lifetime income could be a million dollars a week or it could be 25 cents a month. However 95 years is just plain crazy.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421762)

There's a much simpler solution to that problem anyway: make the copyright end when the artist dies.

Re:Why? (0, Redundant)

LinuxDon (925232) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421964)

But then, when a successful artist dies in an airplane crash their wife and kids will be bankrupt very soon.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

Laur (673497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422026)

But then, when a successful artist dies in an airplane crash their wife and kids will be bankrupt very soon.
That's what life insurance is for. Guess what, my employer will stop my paychecks when I die as well. The purpose of copyright is not to provide a legacy so your wife and kids will never have to do any productive work.

Re:Why? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422084)

Oh well, tough. That's what happens to people employed in other jobs. Its call "life insurance." Look it up sometime.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22422146)

Why should the kids of a recording artist get special treatment? A plumber's kids wouldn't get anything if they died in a plane crash. Is there something that stops the children of recording artists from having to work for a living like other peoples kids do? Copyright is supposed to compensate the artist, not give their kids a free ride.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

Jamu (852752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422006)

I think it's better for the artists if there isn't any financial incentive to see them dead.

Re:Why? (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422018)

make the copyright end when the artist dies
 
You've just condemned all good musicians to be one hit wonders - they'll all have 'accidents' as soon as there is one positive cash flow peice of work to avoid paying them any royalties.

Re:Why? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422090)

You've just condemned all good musicians to be one hit wonders - they'll all have 'accidents' as soon as there is one positive cash flow peice of work to avoid paying them any royalties.


Why? Then the label couldn't make any money of them either, as without the copyright, the work would be in the public domain. Unless you are suggesting that people that want to get away with filesharing the one hit will kill the artist to make it legal, which seems a bit unlikely.

Re:Why? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422104)

That's a short sighted view, although I can't deny that the record labels would take it. However, with the current laws, the record label actually owns the copyright, so if the copyright expired when the artist died, that would be quite bad for the label that they're signed with, but good for the others. Also, if an artist starts having positive cash flow, it'd be in the best interests of the label to see if that person could become something more than a one hit wonder. Imagine how much profit would have been lost if the labels only had Michael Jackson's "Off The Wall" album.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421766)

Indeed--aren't copyrights and patents supposed to -encourage- innovation?

Besides, if you're so poor at managing money that you can't leverage 50 years of income into a retirement account, you're an idiot.

Why is it none of the music or movie folks seem to have heard of a 401k or IRA or equivalent, anyway?

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422320)

Charlie McCreevy never will. He was/is one of the people pushing for software patents also. I knew I recalled the name. He's also a liar (and the email's in the header - please feel free to sue me). He said this recently about the patent directive: "I've said all along is that what the original purpose of the directive was, was to codify the existing situation." [1]

Oh, and software patent opposition is born of "anti-Americanism and anti-big business protests" [ibid]. Yes, it's true. There is no other intellectual basis for it than xenophobia and irrational hate of capitalism. *sighs*

[1] http://wiki.ffii.org/McCreevy050704En [ffii.org]

Re:Why? (1)

anonieuweling (536832) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421838)

If normal people can live from their pensions after about 40 years of labour, why would artists be unable to do the same after profiting for 50 years from their copyrights? Extending copyrights is greed.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

Vaginal_flatulence (1153821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421842)

because it's not your job to make sure they create something else. they made it. it's theirs to do with as they may, and no law you made should be able to take that away from them. why should you get something from them for free? if you do, why would you bother creating anything yourself? you're a fucking loser.

Re:Why? (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422082)

I believe the correct term for your user name is "queef".

Just an FYI.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422132)

because it's not your job to make sure they create something else.
It's also not our job to make sure they can live comfortably without working for 70+ years.

It's theirs to do with as they may, and no law you made should be able to take that away from them.
And no law stops them from doing whatever the like with what they create. The law stops you and I from doing whatever *we* like with our copy.

why should you get something from them for free?
Nobody says we should. What people want is to be able to do whatever they want with that something *after* the artist has been compensated for it's creation.

why would you bother creating anything yourself?
Because artists like to create. Most musicians and visual artists in the world today get little or no compensation for their creations, yet they continue to create. Historically, artists have almost never been given decent compensation for the act of creation, and yet history is full of some of the best art (visual and musical) ever created, certainly better than most of the crap we're getting from millionaire artists these days. Inventors will continue to invent without patents, and artists will continue to create without copyrights, because that is who they are.

Re:Why? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422196)

It's also not our job to set them up for life for a few hours of work in a recording studio. I have a novel idea: if they want to keep control over the recording, don't release it to the public.

The natural state of creative work is that once it's known to the public, you have no control over it at all. It is only by the institution of Law that there are artificial limits in place. It is not beneficial to society to make society support an artist indefinitely for single instances of creative work. And any Law which places the individual ahead of society is not just. Copyright law as it stands today is completely unjust.

If they don't (0, Troll)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421854)

Why would they bother in the first place? If you can't earn a living from your work, why would you stay in that line of work?

Re:If they don't (3, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422136)

Well, you can earn a living. Except you need to do it pretty often. As in, I need to go to work almost every weekday to earn my living. Why should an musician be done their "job" after one song?

Re:Why? (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421922)

Why should anyone get a lifetime income for one thing they created? If they do, why would they bother creating anything else?
More money?

But we aren't really talking about _creators_ here, we're talking about rights owners. The author is still alive, but they don't get anything worth lobbying for. As Bob Newhart said on Sound Opinions last week... when he showed up to audit the labels records he was told there was a "fire" in the N's section of the records department. Nothing that would prevent the label from loosing revenue, but no evidence on what they owe to Bob.

Re:Why? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421924)

Personally, I wouldn't mind such ridiculously long copywrite, if copywrites were non-transferable. This makes it so a copywrite can't be sold to a corporation whole doesn't have a life span... the only copywrites a corporation would own would be works for hire... and then you should be able to classify that as a different style of copywrite... after all, they have no lifespan.

Back to the topic a little more, why SHOULDN'T someone profit from something they created for that long? If people are actually still paying for it 90 years later, it has quite a significant value... it is obviously something special. Else, no one would care, so who cares.

Re:Why? (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422168)

Lots of people still buy Shakespeare plays. Should Shakespeare then be still under copyright?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422224)

Back to the topic a little more, why SHOULDN'T someone profit from something they created for that long?
I make a living from copyright, and I am very lazy. I am completely okay with the idea of being paid in perpetuity for something I create now, but I am also aware that it removes my incentive to create more. The purpose of copyright, sadly, is not for me to get rich. It is to make me (and, more realistically, others) create things that enrich our culture. Imagine if Mozart have been able to keep cashing in on his first symphony for his entire life. Would he have bothered writing the other 40?

Copyright needs to be a balance. A good creator needs to be rewarded well enough that they can make more creating than doing something else, but not so well that they just stop. I remember Terry Pratchett saying (possibly quoting someone else) 'when you stop writing, you aren't an author, you're just some guy who wrote a book once.' The copyright system should reward authors, not guys who wrote a book once (and I say this as a guy who wrote a book once).

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22422304)

"Back to the topic a little more, why SHOULDN'T someone profit from something they created for that long? If people are actually still paying for it 90 years later, it has quite a significant value... it is obviously something special. Else, no one would care, so who cares."

Copyright length shouldn't be based on value or commercial viability. The fact that something is popular shouldn't extend its length. In fact, that's all the more reason it should enter the public domain so that the current generation can enjoy it freely; after all, that was supposed to be the deal, the artist's end of the bargain for a government granted (and enforced) monopoly of _limited_duration_.

Just because people still buy Beatles albums doesn't mean they still need to be copyrighted. And how often, exactly, does a person actually _start_ seeing significant royalties 50 years after a work's release? If you didn't save your money while you were making it 50 years ago, you should have to keep working just like everybody else. That, or enjoy whatever public retirement benefits your country offers.

The only exception I see as necessary to this is for for-profit derivative works. So, for instance, I think Matheson should get a cut when _I_Am_Legend_ gets made into yet another movie. But I see no reason I shouldn't be able to grab the text off Project Gutenberg if I want to read the original.

Re:Why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22421934)

Primarily they would continue to create because they are creative people and enjoy the process. These laws are, I imagine, designed to protect people who could not create if their life depended upon and so instead resort to farming other people's creativity, warehousing it and then selling it for huge sums, of which they keep the lion's share and give a small token to the originator.

They are going away though, like the inevitable decay of all putrid matter. Mmm. Putrid.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22421996)

I wouldn't mind someone getting a lifetime income for something *they* created. But let's face it, people pushing things like this aren't creators.

Re:Why? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422206)

Why should anyone get a lifetime income for one thing they created? If they do, why would they bother creating anything else?

If what you assert was true, then the likes of Stephen King, Tom Clancy, Danielle Steel and wouldn't need to write one book. But it's not. I really doubt that residual income on one single work is enough to live on except very rare cases. We don't hear about these one-hit wonders retiring off to the Bahamas to retire from their one hit.

Re:Why? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422278)

wouldn't need to write one book.

I meant "would only need to write one book".

My post isn't a defense of 95 year copyright, I think that too is a bad idea, it's absurdly long. I'm just arguing against assumptions that look false to me.

Re:Why? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422298)

exactly. for that matter why is it that copyrights can exceed the life-time of the content creator? have they explained how it benefits the artist if the copyright outlives the artist?

Absurd (4, Insightful)

dustmite (667870) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421746)

So get a job, honestly, nobody inherently deserves to be able to survive decades from doing something once early in life unless it was truly highly valuable to society (in which case it should pay for itself, and shouldn't require forced theft of taxpayers to give somebody money for sitting on their butt). Go flip burgers or make new recordings or something, leeching from others is disgusting.

Re:Absurd (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422122)

So get a job, honestly, nobody inherently deserves to be able to survive decades from doing something once early in life
Or *invest* those earnings from the big hit and live off of that. I have no sympathy for people who were millionaires due to some one time hit and then frittered it away.

Why bother? (5, Insightful)

Hexedian (626557) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421750)

Why bother? It's not like anything created by the current artists in their teens will still be listened to five years from now, let alone fifty...

Re:Why bother? (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422228)

That depends. Some artists and songs are so bad that they are actually worth remembering and listening to for more than just five years, much like B-movies.

I agree! (5, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421774)

I think that the government & various communications companies that I've done work for over the years should pay me for my designs & plans for 95 years after their creation. Why yes, they are works of art!

Trolling (-1, Offtopic)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421786)

I hereby copyright Trolling. Nobody is allowed to troll without my permission. License fees start at 100 BILLION dollars.

Re:Trolling (4, Funny)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421884)

I'm copyrighting(c) the use of the word copyright(c). Everyone who uses the word copyright(c) must put a little copyright(c) (c) after it, and give me $.05 for each instance.

I'm also copyrighting(c) the word copyleft(c), so you Gnu folks won't get away with it either.

And the copyright(c) (c) notation? Yep, copyrighting(c) that too.

This post copyright(c) me, 2008.

You FAIL (5, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421974)

I hereby copyright Trolling. Nobody is allowed to troll without my permission. License fees start at 100 BILLION dollars.

Sorry punk. You can only copyright your own troll posts. Provided the act of trolling weren't patented, which it is, by me.

My lawyers will be in touch.

Sincerely,

Mr. Underbridge

Resident Troll

EuroDisney (2, Insightful)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421788)

Man they open up that EuroDisney and now they're extending copyright over there as well... Watch out for Disney China.

Aww, damnit. (3, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421792)

I'm personally hoping the make a special category for bubblegum pop music - that crap can be copyrighted for 10,000 years. Sort of like how you lock up radioactive waste based on half-life.

/P

Fair Use? (1)

maxair_mike (1154515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421802)

Fair use, anyone? I bought the music, and if it was a digital copy, why should they have any say on me paying more so I can listen to it in my car since I don't have the means to use my iPod in my car? Oh, that's right, they want to control where, when, and and what I listen to their crap on. Let go of the dying business model. Give your consumers their proper power. I would bet things like this only encourage more people to just say "screw you" and download illegally.

That doesn't make sense (2, Interesting)

thisisnic (1221358) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421810)

Why would artists need compensating for when people make *legal* copies?

Two important questions: (2, Insightful)

Arcaeris (311424) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421824)

1) What incentive does a "lifetime of income" give to songwriters to write new songs? Will amateurs be the only ones writing songs until their next big hit single?

2) What's the difference between burning a second copy of a CD FOR MYSELF and carrying that original CD between my house and my car with me? Because one used my hand and one used a computer?

Re:Two important questions: (2, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422068)

1) What incentive does a "lifetime of income" give to songwriters to write new songs? Will amateurs be the only ones writing songs until their next big hit single?

Well, to be fair, the laws of supply and demand eventually kicks in. The heirs of the folks who wrote Ragtime tunes probably wouldn't be seeing a whole lot of royalty income right now. In fact, I think Disney, Inc. and perhaps a handful of others are the only ones I've seen who are capable of zombifying their old stuff and still make some money off of it.

Given the mass of dreck we see nowadays, the incentive for the sognwriter would be to keep them thar royalty checks not only coming in, but to continually make stuff that gets attention. Sure, things have (in many genres) gotten to the point where it's 'all rehash all the time', but it all has a limited shelf life.

As for #2, I agree with you. The whole point there is a greed-play by corporations who can't stand the thought that their business model isn't quite keeping up with evolution.

/P

Re:Two important questions: (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422314)

Well, to be fair, the laws of supply and demand eventually kicks in. The heirs of the folks who wrote Ragtime tunes probably wouldn't be seeing a whole lot of royalty income right now. In fact, I think Disney, Inc. and perhaps a handful of others are the only ones I've seen who are capable of zombifying their old stuff and still make some money off of it.
Which is exactly why such an extension is pointless to begin with. It would be like the government setting a maximum price for a good or service that is far higher than the market price.

The stupid. It burns. (4, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421832)

Quite honestly, if (like me) you are a European, I guess it's time to kick some butt and make Europe more democratic.

Whoever that Commissioner is, I propose we all sack him. With extreme prejudice, if you see what I mean...

OK, this being said, anyone ready to open a petition against this stooopid copyright extension?

Re:The stupid. It burns. (2, Informative)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422134)

Sack him? It's a politician. The best we Europeans can do next time is not vote for.. oh wait, the Commission isn't a democratically elected body.

1. Sign international treaties as minister of a European country.
2. Call this activity a "Commission".
3. Have control over 2/3rd over European law effectively bypassing those pesky democratic decisions made by member states.
4. Sell out.
5. PROFIT!!!

Looks like we can end the profit meme here, someone cracked it for us.

Copyright time should be reduced, not increased (5, Informative)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421834)

If I do a days work I get paid a days wage, I don't see why it should be that much different for Musicians.

If it takes 6 months to record an album why should they still get paid for the work in 90 years? Copyright time should be reduced, not increased After this time it would become freely distributable. If the time was reduced to 7-10 years this would surely promote creativity.

However the artist should keep control if music was going to be used for other purpose other than listening (movie soundtrack or advert ) and be allowed to permit or deny such use.

This would be a fairer system all round.

Re:Copyright time should be reduced, not increased (1)

Laur (673497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422210)

I completely agree. When copyright was first created in the US, it could take years, or even decades to effectively spread your work around and copyright was a scant 14 years. With today's modern communications, you can transfer an album or book from California to Japan in the blink of an eye, and market your works globally. This means that the time to realize a profit from your work is significantly shorter. Why then have copyright terms only increased with the advance of technology? It is well known that the vast majority of works make the vast majority of their profit in the first few years of their life. It is the rare work indeed that is still profitable after 20 years, let alone 70 or 95. Why should we be basing our laws on the exceptions, rather than the rule?

Subsidized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22422288)

True.
And while most performing artists are already heavily subsidized by the states, extending copyright to recoup the cost and efforts makes little sense.

And while we are at it, people who make movies are treated like shit and get virtually no money. Musicians get everything and it's still not enough.

So, can I buy that rifle now.
Yes, the big one...

Cheers Charlie... (4, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421836)

Ruddy hell there are some people who really do give the Irish a bad name....

Charlie McCreevy [europa.eu] is an ex-Irish MP and a chartered accountant whose biggest role was as Minister for Finance in Ireland.

Currently has no registered special interests of note, but damn he has come up with a stupid proposal. Even something sensible like "until death" would have met the requirements for people living longer whereas 95 years is just about the corporations behind the people.

Lifetime of income from one thing? (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421844)

Talk about encouraging laziness! Why should an 'artist' garner a lifetime income from a single thing? I install an OS on a server, should I be expected to get royalties for as long as that server is in operation? No, of course not, that's insane. Yet this is how recording companies, legislatures and even maybe some real artists see the world. Make once, get paid many. I guess that's par for the course in a world that makes life entirely too easy.

one-hit musicians only? (3, Insightful)

a10_es (579819) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421856)

if an artist is incapable of creating nothing more than a hit, is (s)he really an artist? should (s)he be able to live off of it? and why should this be limited to musical recordings only? why not ebooks or other digitally-storable artistical forms?

oh well (2, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421868)

Not like anyone honors the copyright anyways.

Self defeating (5, Insightful)

Mprx (82435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421874)

The more ridiculous the so called "intellectual property" laws become, the faster the remaining traces of respect the average person has for them will erode. While there's a valid argument for a short copyright term being beneficial to society, 95 years will only encourage people to ignore the law altogether.

I dont mind lifelong copyrights... (2, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421888)

but I think the owner, must re-register the work ever once in a while, otherwise it can revert to the public domain. its a win for Disney who dont want to lose the mouse and it would be a win for the consumer who want an out of print song\book\movie that only they care about

Re:I dont mind lifelong copyrights... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422226)

Like it or not, that mouse is a part of US culture. We SHOULD have the rights to it by now. Jefferson et. al. didn't want culture tied up in business forever.

Terminator Chick? (1)

webword (82711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421894)

What if that chick on the new Terminator series came out with a song? I mean, she probably lives forever and stuff. By this logic, copyright should be infinite. Terminator babes deserve equality.

Oh, drat. (1)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421898)

There goes the neighborhood. What say we spam McGreevy with groovy alternate ideas and lots of reasons why his idea is, shall we say, decrepit and ignorant? Politely, of course. We're decent people.

What the Big Four SHOULD do is use a business model where people deposit money on an escrow account or something, and once the account reaches a certain amount, put the album/movie they're paying for online, in high quality, for free. For example, let's say they want $10,000,000 for a new Pearl Jam album. People who want a byte of that fork over a few bucks, plus a few bucks extra if they want a CD with a pretty inlay and a PJ mug and T-shirt. Moichandizing, moichandizing! I like having band gimmicks and pens, gimmeh!

Seriously though, I think it would work. Copyright just doesn't, in its current form; it's swimming against the stream. Plagiarism is built into nature. Molecules are identical, so are their composite particles (i.e. they're clones); DNA does self-replication; creatures learn through imitation, else why would there be schools? That's the base line why copyright is just not so right. The only edge you have is to keep an idea, song, movie or program (update?) for yourself and release it under certain terms. Once it's in the wild, good luck trying to control it. (Right, RIAA?). I'd set up a company to do it myself, but I'm already running four and I'm a bit tired, so I'll let one of you scoop it up and get rich. I'll happily help pay for the next Mighty Mighty Bosstones album.

- Jynx

Good idea. (1)

illegibledotorg (1123239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421900)

This is godsend for artists like Britney Spears who still have incredibly popular songs like her "Baby One More Time" and "Oops, I did it again"

Think about how often you hear those songs on the radio! In 2093, Britney will need the income from this song to survive! Honestly, she's entitled.

huh? (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421904)

Meanwhile if you invent a really cool technology that saves millions you only get payment for, what, 20 years?

Seems a little disproportionate/unfair - I mean like a good tune as much as the next person, but I don't see it having the same impact as many new inventions can. Sounds harsh if the inventor of a third world solar powered incubator, or a new catheter, or a water purification kit gets money for only 20 years whilst the writer of the crazy frog can get money for 95. What is the world coming to?

This is Getting Stupid (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421916)

Screw it! Someone copyright the damn dictionary and all words within and stop people from writing books and songs entirely. Yes. I know that's a moronic suggestion but, at the rate things are going, it'll sound more and more logical compared to the inane crap that politicians and lobby groups are suggesting... And I work in a creative industry where protecting the rights to my work is important to me, but this is so far beyond laughable now....

In other news... (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421928)

Workers are demanding to be compensated for their work for 95 years after leaving a business because everything they do is obviously copyrighted to them.

Protect the artists? Please (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421940)

This is to protect the recording industry.

Since when do artists deserve (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421942)

a lifetime income? Can't they make enough profit off of it the first 50 or so ridiculously long years? Works often make the most money in the beginning of their life, not so many years later when it is no longer in synce with the zeitgeist that imbues so many creative products and fads.

I can't get a lifetime income based on most work I did so many years ago. Neither do others.

The purpose of copyright was to give an incentive to produce and publish material -- and have society benefit both by initially recieving it and then getting it in public domain. Enforcement costs money (police, courts, etcetera), so this time-limited monopoly was a fair arrangement.

But by no means was it to guarantee an income for life. That seems a little too much for just any random creative work when others have to make a day to day living. Not that I believe "it's for the poor starving artists!" line anyway.

Re:Since when do artists deserve (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422316)

Why doesn't the MF also state that EU will legislate companies are bound to pay 50% of the royalty to artists?
Why doesnt the motherfucker EU legislate that 360 degree contracts are invalid, and unless artist has 50% of the total income the label gets, the contract is invalid.
Am sure more radioheads will follow.

WTF? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421950)

He also wishes to investigate options for new levies on blank discs, data storage and music and video players to compensate artists and copyright holders for 'legal copying when listeners burn an extra version of an album to play one at home and one in the car

And, why should they be 'compensated' for it at all? I bought the CD. By my understanding of fair use, I'm fscking allowed to do that.

Just because they want to convince people that they should get paid for media/place shifting, doesn't actually make it true. It's just what they're trying to convince people.

OK, fine, downloading it without paying for it is copyright infringement. Pursue that. I don't care. But things like mix tapes have already been ruled as a perfectly legitimate use of your own copies of songs.

Soon they'll want to get paid every time I hear the &^$^^& song. They really do risk alienating the people whoa actually buy this stuff.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers

Re:WTF? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422268)

Soon they'll want to get paid every time I hear the &^$^^& song.

Where have you been? They've been wanting that for years, and have publicly said as much.

NINETY-FIVE Years?!? (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421956)

This is in "dog years" right?

So what? (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 6 years ago | (#22421994)

Even if this is legislated does anyone truly believe it will have any impact?

The internet is creating a de-facto public domain. lol

Why not just ban listening to music altogether... (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422020)

that would solve copying problem for good. Honestly, I don't even want to listen to any commercial crap any more at all. They can have their music.

Dadada (1)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422040)

Would this apply in the UK?

Aren't some of the Beatles' earliest recordings going to be entering the public domain very soon unless the copyright terms are extended?

Re:Dadada (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422186)

Which is why this is propping up. It's like the Micky Mouse protection acts that have been passed here in the US.

Oblivious to the actual economics (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422058)

If it doesn't make a lifetime worth of income in the first year, it's very unlikely any publisher will bother with a work after a few years. If it hasn't made a tidy sum to invest in 50 years then it's been out of print for most of them.

How many works are there that are over 14 years old, still generating royalties, and have not made enough money for the creator that they can comfortably retire for the next 95 years?

Copyright time (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422070)

A more reasonable copyright time is when you die, so does the copyright to that work.

Re:Copyright time (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422286)

What happens with works that are created by more than one person? That are continually modified by an incoming stream of new people?

Until death is just dumb. It unfairly punishes the creator for dying early (he does have a right to provide for his family, after all), unfairly rewards the creator for living an extra long life, and isn't justified by the theoretical point of copyright in the first place (to encourage creation).

The term should be 14-20 years if registered, and 1 year if not. After that you should be able to renew as many times as you like on a five year interval, and you should be able to assign that right to your heirs. The fee should be large, and per work. The fee should increase exponentially for each renewal. That would make the law uniform amongst individuals, groups, and corporations. It would balance the societal benefits with rewards for the creator.

Support Creative Commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22422080)

If you don't like these crazy Copyright terms, the answer is simple: Avoid works under full Copyright, and encourage others to do the same.

Now, if you can get a fair use copy without paying for it (i.e.: DVR your favorite TV show, record your favorite song off the radio, etc.), go ahead and do it. But, DO NOT, under any circumstances, spend money on works under terms you don't like. Take all the money you would have spend on those works, and contribute that to artists, writers, etc. you like who publish under a Creative Commons license.

Artists (of all kinds) will follow the money.

If you follow this practice, and convince two others to do the same, who in turn convince two others, we'll get a pyramid scheme going that will end with the death of infinite copyright terms, and more creative works for us all to share and remix.

Why 95 Years? (1)

um_atrain (810963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422086)

If the point of this extended copyright is so that artists will maintain the copyright for the rest of their lives, why did they go and mention a specific amount of time? Wouldn't it make more sense to just say "until they die", rather than trying to estimate the average lifespan of a modern artist? What if (s)he dies young?

When you think about it... (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422098)

Many different points.

1. The purpose of copyright is not to give someone a life-long income, the purpose is to give people incentives to create (in this case musical) works, which in turn helps society as a whole. I would like to see how 95 years instead of 50 years copyright will cause more music to be created.

2. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then surely record companies and other companies should be excluded. So lets say: 95 years of copyright for the composer and musicians; copyright can be sold or licensed for at most ten years at a time and then automatically falls back to the composer (and any contract saying otherwise is void; note that this about the right to make _copies_, consumers who bought for example a record would have the right to own it and not copy it forever). Works for hire fall into public domain after ten years.

3. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then we should say so. Make it for example for the life time of the composer + 10 year (to give a bit of income to heirs), or 50 years from the creation, whichever is longer.

4. We are talking now about real long times. Over that length of time, things tend to get lost. Works get orphaned (because the copyright owner has no idea what is his property, for example), and permission to copy can be impossible to get because the owner cannot be found. I'd like some rules to take that into account.

This is not about musicians... (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422106)

This is about politicians investing in patent trolls and extortionist companies to finance their rule over you and I.

Don't you people see that? If these people are forced to work they wont have time to plan their rule over us.

everytime i read a piece of legislation like this (1)

TheRealZeus (1172755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422112)

i go to the pirate bay

Cry Me a River (1)

EEBaum (520514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422114)

People are living longer and 50 years of copyright protection no longer give lifetime income to artists who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties, he said.

What, copyright's purpose is a retirement plan for one-hit wonders now?

I'd invoke the world's smallest violin, but the recording is still under copyright.

earnings cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22422128)

if they want to "protect" for a certain period of time, i think they should limit this protection to a certain amount.
eg until the album earns $XXX,XXX

So wait... (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422130)

He wants to put levies on me burning my own source code, photos, and personal documents to blank optical media in order to help the music industry?

Paul McCartney ... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422152)

is going to need all the extra cash after Heather Mills has taken him to the cleaners!

Contact Charlie McCreevy (1)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422192)

Maybe EU residents should E-Mail the commissioner to tell him what they think.

His name is Charlie McCreevy; you can have a look at his bio/profile/portfolio etc here:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/mccreevy/index_en.htm [europa.eu]

His E-Mail Address: Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int

Notice that this is *not* a call to spam him; that won't help anybody. Informed, thoughtful considerations about why a copyright extension is a good/bad idea might. Maybe he listens to what citizens are saying.

Lifetime income -- for whom? (1)

phliar (87116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422198)

The only people getting rich off all these insane scams are the recording company executives with their multimillion dollar golden parachutes. The 5 cent royalty that crime-gangs like the RIAA allow the actual artists to have isn't providing significant income to anyone except a few big names.

Why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22422204)

Open Letter to the EU Commissioner;

Why exactly should society give "lifetime income to artists [and companies, of course] who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties"?

What other human contributions and contributors to society are enjoying similar guaranteed lifetime income?

Please elaborate.

What the hell? (1)

rpillala (583965) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422214)

I want a cut from the future earnings of all my students. They couldn't have done it without me after all.

correction... (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422234)

The European Union Commissioner for the Internal Market has today proposed extending the copyright term for musical recordings to 9.5 years.

there...fixed it for you.....

oh? what? you were being serious? but, honestly, how can this be a good idea for the people? yes, I understand the industry is giving you a lot of money to make these crazy laws, but really, the people, who elected you into office, are also giving you a lot of money to look out for their best interests. are the bribes from industry lobbyists really a bigger source of income than taxes?

wrong direction (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422258)

i would think a 5 or 10 year copyright would be enough, if you dont get rich off your product by then that means it is not a lucrative product, (and needs to be re licensed under the GNU/GPL forever) - :)

The best argument... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422262)

...against people living off early works is the Phil Spector Syndrome.

You wind up with things like this [msn.com] prowling around and causing deaths.

This proposal is a good start... (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#22422324)

...but we need to do more. I used to flip burgers at McDonald's 30 years ago, but I'm still alive, and I haven't seen one thin dime from them since 1979. This is an outrage. We need to expand the rights to get compensated for work over a lifetime to *everyone*. Fairness will only be achieved when the financial well being of my grandchildren is ensured through 2073 by their receipt of residuals for my work at McDonald's.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?