p2pnet - rss feed: Big Music’s UK defeat
p2pnet news | politics:- EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and Warner Music (US) have suffered a major upset in the UK.
The Big 4 organise music cartel effort to browbeat the British government into extending copyright laws beyond 50 years has failed.
“The government would have had to push the European Commission for a change in the law but said such a move did not seem appropriate as it would not benefit the majority of performers and could lead to increased costs,” says Reuters.
That wasn’t how a crew of very rich rockers saw things.
Paul McCartney, Cliff Richard, U2, Yoko Ono [Yoko Ono?], Barry Gibb, Petula Clark and Dame Kiri Te Kanawa [?] were among 4,500 artists who signed a newspaper advertisement demanding that the government extend the copyright in sound recordings to 95 years.
It’s, “frustrating that on the issue of copyright term the government has shown scant respect for British artists and the UK recording industry,” laments John Kennedy, the man who runs the Big 4’s IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry).
The issue has become a hot topic in Britain because, “early hits from ageing acts approach the cut-off point, just as downloading music sparks a revival for back catalogues,” says Reuters, adding:
Under current rules, performers can earn royalties for 50 years from the end of the year when a sound recording was made. In comparison, novelists, playwrights and composers enjoy copyright protection for their life and 70 years afterwards.
Cliff Richard, whose first hit “Move It!” from 1958 is approaching the cut-off point, has led the campaign to highlight the issue, with support from the likes of McCartney, Robbie Williams and The Who’s Roger Daltrey.
Copyright ‘protection’ ‘is 95 years in the US and 70 years in Australia it is 70 years.
Meanwhile, Geoff Taylor, ceo of the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) another of the Big 4 enforcement units, is quoted as saying:
“We will continue to put forward the strong case for fair copyright in Europe. It is profoundly disappointing that we are forced to do so without the backing of the British government.”
Also See:
Reuters - UK rejects music copyright extension, July 24, 2007
very rich rockers - Gower report: jail file sharer, December 8, 2006
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
THE LOGIC WAS FLAWED
So, if recordinf copyrights are exteded 20 years, the pool of records that will share the money (a fixed amount) paid by radio stations will increase, meaning that the per song income is reduced.
With the proposed change more recording owners (not necessarily artists) would share the fixed income money so less money would be paid fr the recordingd.
THE LOGIC IS
Actually the only meaningful way to increase income to recording owners (not necessarily artists, I repeat) is to increase the amount of money that is paid by radio stations, and that was not part of the law change requested. Increasing the pool of songs that share the pot in no way increases payments to recording owners.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
This extension would only prove worthy to the obscenely rich. I mean come on, paul mcartney is worth around 500 million pounds, can he really claim he needs the royalties?
I’m sorry but i have no sympathy. Copyrights and patents are manifestly for the rich.