UK ‘Public Domain’ blow
p2pnet.net News:- The concept of public domain, “the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests,” looks about to suffer a serious setback in the UK.
In the US, copyright law locks up songs for close to a century. Now James Purnell, the UK minister for creative industries, appears to have been sucked in by entirely false record label cartel claims that it’s being “devastated” by p2p file sharing.
He wants to extend copyrights to beyond 2015 because he, “thinks the extra revenue for record companies will allow them to find new acts and develop their talent,” says The Scotsman.
“Finding talent and artists is expensive,” Purnell is quoted as saying. “There is a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record companies can plough money back into unearthing talent.”
UK culture secretary Tessa Jowell, “is also planning to set up a music council, to help with cross-industry schemes,” adds The Scotsman.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
The Scotsman – Long-playing plans for music copyright ownership , June 6, 2005
June 7th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Finding talent is expensive? Considering how much crap spews forth from big music, I would guess that they aren’t spending any money on looking for this talent. I guess all the bigwigs are getting a daily dose of nose candy instead.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:12 am
“Finding talent and artists is expensive,” Purnell is quoted as saying. “There is a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record companies can plough money back into unearthing talent.”
Purnell knows nothing about music talent (artists) is “developed” and is, additionally, concerned about the wrong issue.
I know of no artist talent “developed” by a record company. I know of many artists that were exploited and also ruined by record companies. As it were, these artist almost always changed record labels every few years because they did not like how the way they were were promoted and/or exploited and/or paid by the record label.
I know that many artists resent the exclusive contracts they have to sign so that they can sell records through a label, because the so called exclusive contract makes them slaves of the record company, until the record company decides they ar no longer useful.
The issue of copyright duration can only be analyzed under the theory of how the people are best served with the best music, not how the record companies are served by the law. After all, the purpose of the copyright laws is to promote the creation of literry, artistic and musical works, not wealth for the publishers and the record companies.
It looks like Purnell is concerned about the interest of the music business, and not concerned at all for the good of the people, the music and the artists and seems to be going in the wrong direction.
Durations of copyrights should be reduced so as as to increase the wealth of the people as owners of public domain music at a faster rate. Put it to vote by the people.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com