Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
UK rejects music copyright extension
Reuters: "The British government rejected a plea to extend copyright laws for sound recordings to beyond 50 years on Tuesday, prompting the music industry to accuse it of not supporting musicians and artists."
To my way of thinking, at least, there are two major flaws that the industry reps are making right off the bat. #1 A 50 year copyright expiration does not hurt artists, it hurts labels. If an artist is going to make any money off of an album, they've managed it in the first 50 years, if not, they've found a second job and likely retired by then. I looked for a single song at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_in_music which still matters to somebody financially and failed. #2 Copyright expiration does not take music away from the artist(s), it simply provides a fair pathway for anybody to listen to it. An artist should be happy that more people get to hear whatever it is that they put into the recording.
Greed is the biggest thing wrong with today's "music industry."
It's sad to read this article, becuase they should be more strict about music copyrights but insted of extending the law, they rejected to expend? Maybe this is why the musics today have similar rhythms and mood. I would like to see more diversity.
After 50 years a song has either made it or failed. The people fighting for an extension of copyright are the people who have had a success and want to greedily continue to receive money from the song. I feel that in 50 years the song has become a pop culture icon and should be allowed to become completely main streamed. After so many years the song should be in the hands of the people. For in reality it’s the people who made the song what it is. Yeah the song was good to grab people’s intrigue but they made it the icon/pop statement that it is. At some point the artists needs to let go of their greed and give into its audience.
It's not about "success or failure" it's about who benefits. Many people believe that if they create something they ought to be able to pass the wealth generating potential of that to their children.
Unfortunately many of the rights holders are not families but rather corporations, and with their duty to their stockholders, they would like to be able to enforce a copyright indefinitely. Can you blame them?
4 comments:
To my way of thinking, at least, there are two major flaws that the industry reps are making right off the bat. #1 A 50 year copyright expiration does not hurt artists, it hurts labels. If an artist is going to make any money off of an album, they've managed it in the first 50 years, if not, they've found a second job and likely retired by then. I looked for a single song at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_in_music which still matters to somebody financially and failed.
#2 Copyright expiration does not take music away from the artist(s), it simply provides a fair pathway for anybody to listen to it. An artist should be happy that more people get to hear whatever it is that they put into the recording.
Greed is the biggest thing wrong with today's "music industry."
It's sad to read this article, becuase they should be more strict about music copyrights but insted of extending the law, they rejected to expend? Maybe this is why the musics today have similar rhythms and mood. I would like to see more diversity.
After 50 years a song has either made it or failed. The people fighting for an extension of copyright are the people who have had a success and want to greedily continue to receive money from the song. I feel that in 50 years the song has become a pop culture icon and should be allowed to become completely main streamed. After so many years the song should be in the hands of the people. For in reality it’s the people who made the song what it is. Yeah the song was good to grab people’s intrigue but they made it the icon/pop statement that it is. At some point the artists needs to let go of their greed and give into its audience.
It's not about "success or failure" it's about who benefits. Many people believe that if they create something they ought to be able to pass the wealth generating potential of that to their children.
Unfortunately many of the rights holders are not families but rather corporations, and with their duty to their stockholders, they would like to be able to enforce a copyright indefinitely. Can you blame them?
Post a Comment