Comments on: Big Music UK copyright defeat?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:23:39 +0000

lets see. This cant be gachnar its too well written. so it must be gachnars father !!! welcome gachnar’s father =)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:24:40 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:55:19 +0000

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.