Rock veterans win copyright fight

**Maggy J** · 13-09-2011, 08:50

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14882146

Quote:

Musicians are set to receive royalties from sales and airplay well into their old age under a new EU ruling.
On Monday, the EU Council voted to extend the copyright on sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.
The move follows a campaign by artists like Cliff Richard as well as lesser-known performers, who said they should continue to earn from their creations.

Quote:

Under the 50-year rule, the copyright on songs by The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who would have expired in the next few years.
That would have meant that anyone could have used and sold those songs in any way, and the performers and record labels would have ceased to receive royalties.
Rolling Stone Mick Jagger told the BBC that the EU's decision was "obviously advantageous" to musicians.

Well I can appreciate that it maybe appropriate seeing that people live longer.Perhaps it might be better if it just covered the lifetime of the individual performer.

TheNorm · 13-09-2011, 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

....Perhaps it might be better if it just covered the lifetime of the individual performer.

John Bonham's family might disagree.

**Maggy J** · 13-09-2011, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

John Bonham's family might disagree.

They may but there has to be a cut off point at some time..Copyright is supposed to be about rewarding the artist not providing monies indefinitely to a family.Otherwise we would be paying Shakespeare's descendants for evermore.

tizmeinnit · 13-09-2011, 09:49

they have just extended the cut off to 70 years you just posted about it

Mick Fisher · 13-09-2011, 13:29

Wish I could still be getting a rake off from all the central heating systems I installed over the last 30 years.

denphone · 13-09-2011, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

They may but there has to be a cut off point at some time..Copyright is supposed to be about rewarding the artist not providing monies indefinitely to a family.Otherwise we would be paying Shakespeare's descendants for evermore.

l agree there should be a cut off point of say 20 years as for lets say you are a company who has a patent on a product then generally your patent will run out after 15 to 20 years so why should musicians be any different.

**Maggy J** · 13-09-2011, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

they have just extended the cut off to 70 years you just posted about it

Your point ? I know what I posted, what are you trying to say.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Wish I could still be getting a rake off from all the central heating systems I installed over the last 30 years.

Point of order.You did not patent the design.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

l agree there should be a cut off point of say 20 years as for lets say you are a company who has a patent on a product then generally your patent will run out after 15 to 20 years so why should musicians be any different.

I think patents should be extended to cover the lifetime of the patent holder/designer.Why shouldn't they all get the profits of their patent/copyright?

denphone · 13-09-2011, 20:03

Paul McCartney and Cliff Richard and many others are fabulously rich as are many other musicians and in my mind have made more then enough money from having copyright for 20 years and why should they constantly be paid time after time when in many other professions you only get paid the once and thats it.

Mick Fisher · 13-09-2011, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Paul McCartney and Cliff Richard and many others are fabulously rich as are many other musicians and in my mind have made more then enough money from having copyright for 20 years and why should they constantly be paid time after time when in many other professions you only get paid the once and thats it.

Because the copyright game is nothing more than a racket designed purely to make fat backsides even fatter.

**Stuart** · 13-09-2011, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

John Bonham's family might disagree.

As might Amy Winehouse's.

denphone · 13-09-2011, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Because the copyright game is nothing more than a racket designed purely to make fat backsides even fatter.

Here Here.

**Stuart** · 13-09-2011, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Because the copyright game is nothing more than a racket designed purely to make fat backsides even fatter.

Your own situation is not really comparable. If you wrote a song, people can copy it. They can now send nearly perfect or perfect copies to thousands of people. They can do all this easily and quickly.

If you install a central heating system, people can't copy your installation easily. They may not even need to, if the procedures for installation are documented.

Another way to look at it is this. Who would you rather profited from a record? The person (or people) responsible for it's creation, some faceless company who contributed nothing to the record, or someone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time with some recording equipment?

Mick Fisher · 13-09-2011, 22:18

I hear what you say, however to continue to profit for 70 years? They might just as well say forever.

The trouble with the copywrite industry is they just don't know where to stop. Remember them Buddy Holly LP's with just one new track on them. Then there is the region fiddle on DVD's. Up to recently there was the fair use issue on CD and DVD's. Then there is The Performing rights Society who, after a radio station has shelled out to play a track, turn up and demand hundreds of pounds for a license to listen to said radio if there are likely to be up to three people listening.

Totally and utterly rediculous, how many times do they wanna be paid for the same crap.

No wonder piracy is such a problem.

**Maggy J** · 13-09-2011, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I hear what you say, however to continue to profit for 70 years? They might just as well say forever.

The trouble with the copywrite industry is they just don't know where to stop. Remember them Buddy Holly LP's with just one new track on them. Then there is the region fiddle on DVD's. Up to recently there was the fair use issue on CD and DVD's. Then there is The Performing rights Society who, after a radio station has shelled out to play a track, turn up and demand hundreds of pounds for a license to listen to said radio if there are likely to be up to three people listening.

Totally and utterly rediculous, how many times do they wanna be paid for the same crap.

No wonder piracy is such a problem.

Err so you think that they shouldn't profit from their music being sold.So who should profit from the sales of their music?The fat cats you despise?Personally I have no problem with someone having the royalties from their music into their retirement.I just don't think that their family needs the royalties.

70 years is probably too short considering most don't start performing much before 20 and can live until they are 70,80,90.

Plus it a really rubbish excuse for piracy.as they pirate it before it's released sometimes.

tizmeinnit · 13-09-2011, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Your point ? I know what I posted, what are you trying to say.

I apoligize you posted this thread then you posted a comment about desendants of Shakespeare being paid for ever when you yourself had just posted about the extension to 70 years . Here was me thinking Shakespeare died in the 17th century. It was purely meant as a humourous comment and I am sorry you somehow found offense in it