Europe - copyright extended

[MrGongGong]

Copyright does beg the question, to me at least: for how long should one get paid for doing one piece of work?

That's what most people expect though isn't it ?
You work for someone , they pay you, you go on holiday, they pay you, you work some more, they pay you some more, you get old, you stop work, they pay you .......................

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In my opinion for as long as someone is deriving a profit from it, or indeed a deserving benefit as in the case of My Fair Lady <Shaw's Pygmalion> and Barrie's Peter Pan which have provided a significant contribution of funds to RADA and Bart's respectively.

Precisely.

[Dave2002]

fhg and shb

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Also, whether "good works" are involved is I think a red herring. Bill Gates now spends a lot of money on good causes, but I think one can still question the way in which he and Microsoft accumulated the resources in the first place.

I feel there are a lot of different cases to consider when trying to justify copyright. Films, for example, perhaps can be argued as conferring rights to large organisations, as generally it's only large organisations which have the resources to make them, and that seems reasonable. Books are problematic, because most authors don't make much money, but a few, such as Barbara Cartland and Jeffery Archer have and/or do. Is it all justified? I can't really say. The values of books are assessed by market considerations, not on literary, scientific, or other merit.

The fairly recent adjustment for music CDs for living artists seemed reasonable to me - I didn't realise that it was previously possible for copyright to expire before a creator's demise - but is it really necessary for this to carry on for 50 or 70 years? I expect the time limits will increase as those who feel they have a vested interest will push for it in due course.

[Pabmusic]

We're not the first to be exercised by this issue:

[Dave2002]

Indeed, and it is interesting to note that composers from earlier centuries were also concerned, though the laws and practices were probably different.
Haydn took steps to maintain the revenue he received from publications, and to curtail being ripped off by publishers and others. I don't know whether even earlier composers, such as Bach, Handel, were also concerned. Further, even in the 18th/19th centuries, copyright issues were becoming international.

I'm not against copyright protection per se, though the cartoon mentions "perpetual rights", and this seems to me to where there are arguably the most problems. Some musical works do make use of material composed by others, and some are arguably derivative. I can think of several composers including - Tippett, Ibert whose works inlcude clear quotes from other works not written by them, and a few who have written works which are similar to pieces by others.

I can also think of scenarios in which copyright issues could be a clear barrier to artistic freedom. Whether artists/musicians have rights to such freedom would then be open, yet again, for discussion.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Does this apply to folk like MrPee who don't believe that the UK is in Europe ?

Don't knock Mr Pee. I don't think Europe "exists" at all as a continent.

[MrGongGong]

Don't knock Mr Pee. I don't think Europe "exists" at all as a continent.

One for pedants corner I think ?

[cheesehoven]

In my opinion for as long as someone is deriving a profit from it, or indeed a deserving benefit as in the case of My Fair Lady <Shaw's Pygmalion> and Barrie's Peter Pan which have provided a significant contribution of funds to RADA and Bart's respectively.

That someone is deriving a profit from it is a circular argument, since they are only making a profit because it is in copyright.
The 'worthy cause' line seems to me a fairly weak justification put forward by the real beneficiaries of copyright, the big corporations.

[salymap]

Through my working live sheet music wasin copyright for 50 years - when did it extend to70 years for publications, as against recordings?

[Pabmusic]

Through my working live sheet music wasin copyright for 50 years - when did it extend to70 years for publications, as against recordings?

In the early 1990s. Elgar (who came out of copyright in 1984) went back in until 2004 - but I don't recall the exact year.

[johnb]

For the author or the composer, on average, they will seldom make the Forbes Top 100 of earners and most will make meagre returns, so it as appropriate that they works should still have to be paid for long after their passing for the benefit of their children, grandchildren, ECG.

Children?? Grandchildren??? Really????

Anyway, more than anyone else it is the large corporations who will benefit from the extension of copyrite.

[salymap]

In the early 1990s. Elgar (who came out of copyright in 1984) went back in until 2004 - but I don't recall the exact year.

Thanks Pab, I left London about 1988 and there were mutterings about it. As oneof my jobs was copyrighting a new work [pre computers] it involved endless bits and bobs and sending copies to about seven organisations etc.

Fiddly was the polite way of putting it.

[Dave2002]

Children?? Grandchildren??? Really????

Anyway, more than anyone else it is the large corporations who will benefit from the extension of copyrite.

Most of us have to either plan ahead to make sure our children, grandchildren etc. have a reasonable life, or just assume that they can live their own lives with minimal help from us or from society. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that most people should be able to make their own way in life, though obviously some external support, either from family or otherwise, is always welcome. Why should composers, writers, artists etc. be any different?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That someone is deriving a profit from it is a circular argument, since they are only making a profit because it is in copyright.

So, if a group of professional Musicians perform a work by a living composer, and charges the public to come and hear it, the Venue gets income, the orchestra gets income - but the composer gets beggar all?

[cheesehoven]

So, if a group of professional Musicians perform a work by a living composer, and charges the public to come and hear it, the Venue gets income, the orchestra gets income - but the composer gets beggar all?

There is a difference between a work's creator being still alive and therefore having some moral right to claim "Intellectual property" and the enforcement of the rights of dead, the current strange situation.

Copyright, as it presently exists, is the most egregious example of big business stitching up the market while claiming to be protecting the little guy. The composers can easily be (are usually are) screwed over into signing over their rights to record companies and publishers for little or nothing. Paul McCartney does not own his work with the Beatles, Jagger/Richards their early Rolling Stones works, the composer of the song "Angels", these are a few of the vast number of examples of those being screwed while international law supports big business.

What must be doubly galling for these creators is that someone is earning a tidy sum from their "intellectual property" but they themselves receive not a penny, while the courts ruthlessly enforce copyright. I remember a case of a songwriter being prosecuted for plagiarizing a song that he himself wrote.

My own thoughts on what a sensible copyright law should be is:
1. It should be inalienable
2. It should end at the creator's death