Big Music UK copyright defeat?
p2pnet.net News:- Britain’s Cliff Richard wants copyright to last almost a century. And the Big Four Organized Music cartel, in the shape of their IFPI and BPI, are right behind him.
But from the look of it, neither Richard nor Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) are going to get their wishes.
An independent review is to recommend the terms are not extended, a well-placed government source has said, according to the BBC.
But the Big Four say it’s not going to end there and if they can’t impose their will on the UK, they’ll still turn their IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) lose in Europe.
They claim it’ll be “discrimination” against performing artists, but what they really mean is it’ll mean less cash in their own coffers.
But Sir Cliff’s interests aren’t personal, surely? He’ll he standing up for other rich pros such as himself? Not. His earliest tracks start to come out of copyright in 2008, says the BBC.
And The Beatles would also be in the same boat from 2012.
“The copyright review was conducted for Chancellor Gordon Brown by Andrew Gowers, a former editor of the Financial Times,” says the BBC, adding, “His conclusions will be published next week, as part of the chancellor’s annual pre-budget report.”
Also See:
BBC – Musical copyright terms ‘to stay’, November 27, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
November 28th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Thats some good news. I just wish I could pay for some work I did 50 years ago. They are getting payed for few hours in recording studio again, again and again for 50 years.
I think it should be reduced to 1 year!
I just love fact BPI survey has been shown that it was total non-sence. Who did ask, and what was question? 80% on side BPI all I have to say to that is B***S***!
I think Micro$oft and PlayForNolonger and Zune has waken up MP’s to dangers of DRM ect.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Firstly, let’s see if the government actually passes a law based on the report’s suggestions. If they do, then I think we ought to think about those British artists that aren’t Cliff Richard or the Beatles – those who didn’t get rich. They account for about 95% of the artists involved – many of whom depend on the royalties they receive to survive given the fact that people who are paid via royalties are not entitled to pensions. Let’s also think about what this all means to those in the P2P community who, as a result of this report, think at as soon as the Beatles recordings go into the public domain the will be able to upload, and download them with impunity. That isn’t the case. There are two copyrights involved with each recording … the copyright that covers the sound recording itself and the copyright that covers the song… The copyright that covers the song lasts for 50 years past the death of the last surviving writer… consequently, it will continue to be illegal to distribute recordings that have fallen into the public domain via unlicensed P2P services because those who distribute such recordings will still be violating the rights of the song writers and their music publishers.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
lets see. This cant be gachnar its too well written. so it must be gachnars father !!! welcome gachnar’s father =)