Not-So-Golden-Oldies score EU copyright win. Again
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- You’d think mouldy oldies such as Paul McCartney, Cliff Richard (right), U2, Yoko Ono [Yoko Ono?], Barry Gibb, Petula Clark and Dame Kiri Te Kanawa [?] already have enough cash stashed away to keep themselves, their children, their children’s children, their children’s children’s children’s, and so on, in luxury for ever.
That’s what we said in our first post, on the subject, going on, “But No. The greedy sods want more.
“They were among 4,500 artists who last year signed a newspaper advertisement demanding the UK government extend the copyright in sound recordings to 95 years and now they’re, ‘celebrating a major victory’ because a European Parliament committee says it’s OK to boost it to 95 years, said Times Online.
And now, “The EU is expected to make changes to the copyright law which will find the copyright term extended from 50 years to 70 years – enabling veteran singers to receive royalties for, well, virtually forever.
That’s the bottom line (which is what it’s all about according to a story in Music Week.
Says Tech Dirt, “As was unfortunately expected, despite no evidence that this made any economic sense at all, the member states of the EU have agreed to retroactively extend copyright another 20 years, at which point you can expect it to be extended again (thanks to jtdeboe for sending this over).
“This is nothing short of governments and the entertainment industry seizing works from the public domain. As we’ve said before, the purpose of copyright law is to incent the creation of new works. If existing copyright law was enough to incentivize the creation at the time, then there’s simply no reason to retroactively extend the law.
This proposal, which various studies have shown will do little to help content creators, has been pushed for a long time by the record labels. It had been blocked in Europe for a while, but for reasons unknown, Denmark recently changed its mind, thereby enabling this effort to flat out seize material from the public.”
“It’s especially sad that this comes just a few months after the Hargreaves report, which explicitly points out that so much policy is made without evidence — and copyright extension is a perfect example of that. Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out to the record labels, taking away content that was legally yours and no longer will be.”
(Cheers Dredd
September 9th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
What better way to prove you don’t have any more talent than to try to extend royalties for your copyright owner than to support such a pile of BS.
“Oh wow, I can’t write worth shit now, so I’ll support the extension of copyrights for my label and maybe, just maybe, they’ll buy me dinner.”
That’s how this sounds like when you hear these “oldies” supporting such an abuse of copyright.
“It’s a legacy for our children” OR your children could go out and get jobs and contribute to society instead of bleeding off of it? Collecting royalties when you’re not working on new material sounds an awful lot like welfare doesn’t it? I mean seriously, if you’re not working (ie: gigging or coming up with something new worth buying) but you’re collecting money… sounds like social services to me.
The nature of your work requires you to have a temporary monopoly so you can create a new piece of work for which you can later sell and have a temporary monopoly on while you create yet another. Get the picture?
Go ahead shills, counter with “Free ride” comments about downloaders, come one, deny the record profits of the rights holders, deny your fans the interaction they crave and will gladly pay for, just complain and complain and when it all falls down, you’ll go with the industry to the sewer.
September 9th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Let the ninnying bureaucrats think they have control over the situation. They are not even worth arguing with, because their motives are hidden and unspoken. It’s like arguing with religious zealots. They never come out with the real reasons for their position, like how a child acts when throwing a tantrum.
The fact is, I and several million people have vowed to NEVER AGAIN buy music or video content from the cartels. Period. I don’t watch their crap TV either.
So, they won’t get a damn dime from me, ever. Why would I fund a bunch of tyrants? I also ask this of others, and am responsible for depriving the cartels of even more cash.
They can all kiss my ayss, I’ll download what I want, for free, when I want, and nobody can do a damn thing about it. I have accumulated a collection that will last the rest of my life. And I regularly allow people with portable hard-drives to come over and copy anything they want and they allow me to copy what they have.
So, you jerk-offs in your suits and ties can go suck a **** for all I care, because my money stays in my pocket, and YOU LOSE. You caused your own downfall when you started acting like greedy children and threatening my freedom in the name of protecting your petty profits. Profit is fine, but don’t meddle with my freedom or I will take you permanently offline.
BTW anyone that does give money to these cartels is effectively funding the enemy and should be ashamed of themselves, and have become my enemy. You are funding tyranny (but who cares, you have the latest baby gaga album to stroke off to, right?)
September 11th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
See, this is why either copyright should be reduced to 5 years or we shouldn’t have it at all. If these talentless hacks wanted money so badly, they should have gotten real jobs and/or an education. Now they want to extend copyright to about 100 years?! Let me share something…if I were a content owner, I wouldn’t even DREAM of having my stuff copyrighted for 100 years. People are more likely to forget about it, and the only way it would even see the light of day is if someone shares it for free or not. I wouldn’t care about the money. If I needed money so bad, I would just get a regular job after the copyright wore off. Plus even if I did create something, I wouldn’t give it to a big major label, I wouldn’t expect it to be so successful that I would have enough money to outlast even me and I would rather it be pirated and well-known without any money coming to me (which confuses me, of course, because some people would be willing to buy whatever I was spreading around) than to not have it exposed at all at the expense of greed. Screw copyright and copyright supporters. This is what happens when you put a fence around the creative field in the hopes of making money that really shouldn’t even be that much. I can see some traitorous artists (The ones who called us ‘thieves’) trying to climb the fence, but they were the ones who built the fence and put electricity and barbed wire at the top. So I won’t feel bad for them when they end up bankrupt..