EU Commission wants to ban public domain CD reissues

[Neal Pomea]

70 years after the death of the performer who holds copyright or 95 years for a company who had an artist transfer copyright to them are extremely long terms.

SOON these terms will be reversed, I believe, more along the lines of 9 years. Yes. If you cannot make the money you hope to earn in 9 years, why don't you run for governor or senator? Socialism for business! 9 years was the original copyright term in the U.S. If it was adjusted for life expectancy, why does it go 70 years after death?

The monopoly held by people who cannot seem to find a way to make money on older music? It is just incredible!! They must not have ANY idea what the music means to culture. For them it seems to be only for making money. Bury it if you cannot profit from it. Monopolize it for several generations. Compulsory license? You must be kidding. Why do you deserve any payment at all anymore for having recorded something a long time ago and kept it out of print? Maybe some kind of copyright for your lifespan, but why in the world 70 more years or 95, whatever? That is unconsciounable. You record some music and it's as rare as land? Stupid.

These terms of 70 years after one's death for an artist who holds monopoly or 95 years from the date of creation for companies that hold copyright are WAY WAY off. You will see. With the younger people, they will insist that a "generation" is a span of 2 or 3 years, and 70 years might as well be as long ago as mule-driven agriculture.

Edited March 2, 2008 by It Should be You

[PristineAudio]

A point worth making here on the copyrights held by authors:

There are standard contracts in place to pay authors or their estates for the use of music written by them. If you wish to release an album with a track written by composer X, whoever is playing it, you submit your details to the relative collection agency and a license is automatically granted, with the author getting 8% of wholesale sales revenue on a pro-rata basis.

By contrast, if you wish to release a recording owned by record company X you have to negotiate directly with them and they can charge you whatever they like, or refuse point blank to license the music.

In the case of rare classical orchestral recordings this can often be prohibitively expensive. I know of a British composer in his 80s who would love to have recordings of his compositions made for radio broadcasts in the 60s, 70s and 80s put into the commercial sphere. We know they'd sell in very small numbers as he's pretty obscure, despite my best efforts to get some of his older music out. The likelihood is that an orchestra would demand something in the region of $30-40k in payment for the rights to issue these recordings, a sum which would never be recouped - he'd be very lucky to make a fiftieth of that.

Likewise other rarely performed music has had to stay in the vaults awaiting the passing of 50 years simply before it can be heard. The BBC has a huge number of recordings that cannot even be broadcast because their orchestral contracts specified no more than two outings without new payment negotiations.

The idea that any of this as it stands is in the service of either the musicians or the public is a joke - to extend it in order to further line the pockets of 3 or 4 record companies is madness.

[RDK]

SOON these terms will be reversed, I believe, more along the lines of 9 years. Yes. If you cannot make the money you hope to earn in 9 years, why don't you run for governor or senator? Socialism for business! 9 years was the original copyright term in the U.S.

Rightly or wrongly (and I agree with much of the rest of your comments), but if you think copyright will be changed to only 9 years you are incredibly naive.

[user0815]

Obviously, this proposal had to come some day, as some big pop/rock hits from the 60's would enter the public domain during the next decade, and the industry is pressuring to have copyright extended.

"Performing artists - no longer be the 'poor cousins' of the music business" – Charlie McCreevy

If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late fifties and sixties will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years. "I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension", says Commissioner Charlie Mc Creevy in describing the rationale behind his proposal.

as if ... as if european radio stations would play music from the early 1960s or the late 1950s.

i wish they would play some pop music from the 1950s or 1960s on a regular base!

and also ... what happened to social security pensions and social assistance benefits in the european welfare states?

this argument about airplay royalties for anonymous session musicians from the late 1950s who all started their career at the tender age of 17 and who now have to rely on airplay royalties from records that don't get any airplay looks just so ... shoddy.

Edited March 4, 2008 by user0815

[Claude]

Seems that the 2006 Gowers report (which recommended to the british government not to push for a change in copyright duration) is now forgotten.

"the [uK] Government has indicated that it will support a policy change that will allow pop stars to earn more money from their recordings. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, said that the Government would revisit its opposition to extending the copyright term on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years".

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/03/u-turn-for-u2.html

Edited March 5, 2008 by Claude

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Seems that the 2006 Gowers report (which recommended to the british government not to push for a change in copyright duration) is now forgotten.

"the [uK] Government has indicated that it will support a policy change that will allow pop stars to earn more money from their recordings. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, said that the Government would revisit its opposition to extending the copyright term on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years".

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/03/u-turn-for-u2.html

That is a pain in the neck. Remind me, Claude; is this procedure one that requires only a majority in the Council or unanimity?

I can't see the East Europeans getting with this.

MG