Comments on: The Gowers report recommends not extending UK copyright

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:43 +0000

The thing I don’t understand is the idea of doing this retrospectively. Changing the copyright period for all future recordings might be understandable, but surely the artists who made the recordings of 50 years ago did so in the implicit understanding that they would only be able to exploit their afternoon’s work for the next 50 years; it was part of the contract as it were. How do we know that some artists don’t actually want the copyright on their work to run out, in the hope that someone will pick it up and use it?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:26:03 +0000

Liam: I’m not sure I understand much of what you say. However, I do appreciate that a 95 year copyright term will, as you put it, “generate a longer running stream for the artist and the record company” and am not sure that I care. I do my work now and spend, save, or invest the money I earn now. I appreciate it’s nice for relatives to get money from dead artist’s estates, but think they could just as well get the money shrewdly saved or invested at the time. Recording companies I have even less time for, although probably for entirely wrong knee-jerk reasons because they’re big corporations. However, they are essentially a conduit for getting the music to the public and the marketplace: they also have 50 years in which to come up with something new in order to compensate for the future loss of revenue.

Copyright should protect artists (authors, etc.) so that it is worth their while investing in time, money, and effort to produce something that will not be copied before they have had time to claim some reward for their efforts/talent. It should not do much more than that. Assuming one creates something at the age of twenty, is it not enough to have the money rolling in because of it until one is seventy?

By: Liam Browne

Liam Browne — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:20:00 +0000

It can have it’s good points though, A 95 year term of ownership by the creator of the literary,dramatic or recordings of the works will generate a longer running stream for the artist and the record company. Publishers will look to exploit for further terms and life of copyright through the activities they also endevour on. A dip into history if this is passed will lead to all types of weird and wonderful re-works for the purpose of syncronisation,film and T.V. Regarding the R.C’s themselves they can potentially earn a packect of the back of a dead performer if no retention periods are put into place or a possible ‘ill fate’ cause. There will be trouble with the exclusive agreements in place but can be assigned to family members as assets through licence rights.

L Browne

ACM - Music Business Degree Student

By: sil

sil — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:45:03 +0000

Tom: absolutely. Absolutely.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:46:37 +0000

I always thought one of the main arguments in favour of copyright was to encourage creativity. Not extending the term should do this by requiring the music industry to actually come up with new music, which has not been its strong point for a long time now. They should bring all the other copyright deadlines back to the same level.

By: David Goodwin

David Goodwin — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:07:22 +0000

Radio4 implied the recording industry was not particularly bothered about extending copyright. Perhaps very few artists have careers longer than 50 years (or live long enough). I can’t think I actively listen to any music that is 50 years old.

Perhaps on the plus side, it means the Record companies can stop paying royalties to artists after 50 years and keep the cash for themselves (would a band have trademark protection over the use of their name? would there be all that much money involved? (long tail?)).

I remember the US copyright extension being called the Mickey Mouse law (or words to that effect) and it was probably only done to protect Disney….