EU Commissioner Proposes 95 year Copyright 591
Albanach writes "The European Union Commissioner for the Internal Market has today proposed extending the copyright term for musical recordings to 95 years. He also wishes to investigate options for new levies on blank discs, data storage and music and video players to compensate artists and copyright holders for 'legal copying when listeners burn an extra version of an album to play one at home and one in the car ... People are living longer and 50 years of copyright protection no longer give lifetime income to artists who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties, he said.'"
That doesn't make sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The stupid. It burns. (Score:4, Interesting)
Previously Ireland finance minister, his basic position is whatever is good for big business is good for the EU.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
isn't copyright lifetime + 70 years already??! (Score:2, Interesting)
Or does he propose 95 years post death of the writer/artist? Not many people live for 95 years after their death, so I don't see why they need the income.
Fundamental Misunderstanding of the purpose of Cop (Score:1, Interesting)
More Than Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when the USA was first being founded, copyrights were eternal in Europe. America thought this was a Bad Idea, and put the words "secure for a limited term" into its founding document to stop this abuse. Europe eventually agreed, and eternal copyrights ended.
But now, with a pansy Supreme Court that decides that whatever a bought-off Congress calls a "limited term" they're just fine with, we're headed straight back to the eternal copyright, because nobody remembers any longer just why that was such a bad idea in the first place.
And then its a game of ping-pong, with the very same copyright lobby ratcheting the length of time up one place, than then screaming their heads off that everywhere else isn't "up to date" with "artist protections." Wash - Rinse - Repeat. And we're all being screwed over by it.
Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Interesting)
Some of them do. I rarely have, unless a friend needed me to fill in for a single date here or there.
Then again, I deal with the writing aspect and not much else. I have a day job that is fulfilling but doesn't pay the rent (working in education *AND* the music industry, you quickly learn what the nation values as a whole, but that is a whole different story).
From helping friends write silly meaningless pop, I've put a down payment on a house, paid off all the debts I had as a youth and otherwise. If it weren't for album sales, I'd get nothing...*SUPPOSEDLY* I get paid some sort of royalties from when bands play their songs live, but I've never seen it (probably because it is assumed that these are the bands on record, they take care of this internally...not that I care).
Most of the bands I've known that have actually made money, it is almost always through royalties and licensing. Its funny, I make more money from a really bad smooth jazz cd that I helped arrange that has been licensed to muzak or something, than I do the traditional stuff (because those fuckers ALWAYS pay their bills and keep their accounting straight...and yes, I do believe that if you are a small business owner playing music in your establishment, you are using it in a broadcast TO SELL GOOD AND THUS I SHOULD BE PAID TOO).
You'd be surprised at how many artists that actually read their contracts make money on album sales.
I'll probably be considered an astroturfing RIAA junior flunky, so I'll just post this anonymously and make it seem even more like that is what I'm doing...
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)
A Little More Info On the Ex-TD (Score:5, Interesting)
McCreevy was in fact, sent off to Europe for the express purpose of exiling him from Irish Politics. Even in his own Free Market centric party, his policies were far too Thatcherite to let him continue to make his characteristically brash polemics. He gleefully accepted his "promotion" to European statesman, and his party, and indeed the country, breathed a collective sigh of relief.
McCreevy has a history of giving tax breaks and other concessions to industries and business that he "approves of". Witness his institution of a 0% tax on bets made at horse race meetings (he's a big fan of the sport). He's a supply sider with little time for anything that doesn't immediately net money i.e., fair use, hospitals, etc. He's been mentioned before on Slashdot here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org]. The "loose cannon" quote is particularly apt.
Charlie McCreevy is the type of politician lobbyists love. He'll wine and dine, brunch and lunch with all manner of industry representatives and indeed has by the looks of things. Rest assured that when he finally steps down from his post (forcing him out will require tectonic pressure) the entire European Parliment, and Union, will breath a collective sigh of relief.
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me compare this to painting. There are two ways you can go with painting. Painting masterpieces or production art. Production art are originals that are produced within a few days. Artists have to do this because people want originals and not reproductions. And people are not willing to pay oodles for something hanging on their wall. So the artist who paints is caught between a rock and a hard place.
A musician on the other hand can take their time to come up with the next master piece because of copyright and the fact that people accept reproductions. Of course I some people who would never listen to a symphony on a CD and only live. But the reality is that copyright helps people earn livings.
Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Interesting)
Most copyrighted works make most of their money in the first handful years. A 15 year copyright would enable virtually every artist and author to make just as much money as they make under a 95 year copyright.