Forums > Personal > Should UK copyright law be changed?

forum rss feed
Author

Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2392 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Apr 06, 10:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In the UK we are protected by copyright law for 50 years, so were you to record a single and it become a success you and the record company would still get royalties for the next fifty years.

However in the US the law lasts for 95 years and 70 in Singapore, Brazil and Australia.

Whilst this might not seem that much of an issue, consider this in two years time Cliff Richards first recordings fall out of copyright, and in 12 so do the first recordings of Jethro Tull the list goes on.

Now whilst the likes of Queen don't really need to worry about losing their royalties due to the vast sums already accumulated, smaller bands and session musicians who earn a living for such royalties do need to be concerned.

Considering the UK has contributed arguably half of the worlds most successful recordings shouldn't we look after those artists a little better, don't forget that once the record companies stop getting royalties form artists like The Beatles and Stones and Queen, they will have much less to put back into new bands!

The Government is looking into this but I am not holding my breath.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Poo, again user not visiting Queenzone.com
Poo, again
Deity: 4776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Apr 06, 13:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

How would this affect any of us?


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Jake? wrote: I want him to shove it down my throat and shoot. Shoot! Shoot! C'mon! SHOOT! SHOOT!

[/QUOTENAME]



[/QUOTE]







Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2392 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 06, 07:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm not saying it would unless you are a working musician, well of course it will mean the albums will slowly all get cheaper to buy. But I'm not thinking from the point of view of a punter.

Why does it have to effect you for you to have a view? it does however effect a large number of people.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2392 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 06, 08:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sorry but I do know what I'm talking about here, currently the Tresury has asked Andrew Gowers former FT editor to carry out an independant review of the UKs intellectual property framework.
There is curently nothing an artist can do after 50 years has passed from the date of recording, the song falls out of copyright.
Many Artists and now calling for an extension of the copyright term, hence the review by Mr Gowers.

If you are unsure about this please read yesterdays article in the FT page 17


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2392 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 06, 08:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Go read the article then come back and admit you you got it wrong, trust me copyright falls after 50 years, check it out it's online at FT .com

How long does UK copyright last?

Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. The duration of copyright in a film is 70 years after the death of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film. Sound recordings are generally protected for 50 years from the year of publication. Broadcasts are protected for 50 years and published editions are protected for 25 years.

Performers' rights
Performing artists are granted rights lasting for 50 years in relation to:

broadcasting and recording of their live performances;
copying, distribution, renting and lending of recordings of their performances; and
broadcasting, and other communication to the public by electronic transmission (including in on demand services) of sound recordings of their performances; and,
playing in public sound recordings of their performances.
These rights are related to copyright and similar considerations to those outlined above apply to those using material protected by performers` rights and to performers wishing to enforce their rights.






"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
iGSM user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5001 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 06, 09:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I would give the thumbs up.


...this kettle is boiling over...

...one dump...one turd...two tits...John Deacon...

...one prawn...one shrimp...one clam...one chicken!
YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 06, 10:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I never understood why intellectual property becomes public domain after the death of the owner while all other property will never be public domain and can be handed down for generations.

I think there is some sense in the law that ends the patent on medication after a while but that is probably a totally different law.


I do not want any google ads here.

user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 06, 15:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Togg wrote:



Considering the UK has contributed arguably half of the worlds most successful recordings shouldn't we look after those artists a little better, don't forget that once the record companies stop getting royalties form artists like The Beatles and Stones and Queen, they will have much less to put back into new bands!



The artists of the most successful recordings are the ones that do not need to be protected.

Also, I don't think record companies are having revenue problems, and I don't think it will be a problem if they ever will. In fact, I think that their excessive revenues as of now is a primary cause of the perversion of mainstream music. It allows them to monopolize the industry and manipulate pop culture to their liking to maximize profits.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.