What is Digg?66 Comments
- dotlizard, on 02/15/2008, -2/+23let's just make it 100 years, nice round number there. we can stay in iraq 100 years, why can't we lock down content for 5 generations too?
(here's the /sarcasm if anyone needed it). - tehbored, on 02/15/2008, -4/+18If they want to be "fair," why not just make the copyrights last until the owner dies for everybody. If they want to be reasonable (which they don't) maybe they could implement some sort of tiered copyright system where the copyright owner loses certain rights at certain points in time. For example, they may lose rights to royalties for radio play after 30 years but retain rights to direct music sales for 50 years. It doesn't necessarily have to be with those figures, that's just an example.
- Reddog_x2000, on 02/15/2008, -2/+16Why not just make it the performance goes into the PD after the last musician on the recording dies?
- harrisbradley, on 02/15/2008, -1/+14The read: "Let's increase torrent usage 95%"
- PopcornDave, on 02/15/2008, -2/+15Yeah, I can envision a need for the great grandchildren of the Bay City Rollers to be receiving royalties. How many of the artists that are recording are still alive after 50 years? And why not just make it indefinite? That way anything I say or write, I can make sure generations of my offspring are duly compensated as well.
- Rendonsmug, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12Ron Paul would never ever let the EU pass a law that he didn't like! If he was elected President of the United States of America, he would use his obvious veto power on a EUROPEAN law because he would obviously think it violated the AMERICAN constitution.
- Fungii, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12Not to mention, people hiring hitmen to make sure their favourite song enters the public domain in a timely manner. It would be a massacre!!
- alricsca, on 02/15/2008, -0/+10Copyright was never meant to last forever. Ideas were meant to be shared and innovated upon. As Thomas Jefferson said, sharing a fire by giving it to another does not diminish what you have but creates a brighter light for all. How on earth can a culture innovate and create new things when its people are forbidden to use anything created for the last hundred years? What is ironic is that most artist use the works, styles, and techniques of others in the past but never stop to think that they themselves are obligated to allow the same thing. Furthermore, since when are we in the business of allowing people to make eternal profit for one single creative act? On another note, how few of these works are actually owned by their original creator? This is no more than the likes of RIAA trying to make money forever of others peoples work.
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 02/15/2008, -1/+10I can't really put my finger on it, but 95 years seems a bit excessive for some reason..
- andrewpmk, on 02/15/2008, -2/+10Most commercial music has an incredibly short lifetime. Face it, in today's music market, if you can't sell your music in a few years, you are toast. You shouldn't expect to have money keep rolling in when you retire if you don't keep putting out new music - so learn to SAVE your money if you want to retire!
Copyrights on music shouldn't last more than 10 years. By then, 99% of today's pop artists are no longer popular. - uncoveror, on 02/15/2008, -2/+9This is a terrible idea! Copyright is supposed to motivate talented people to create through temporary exclusive rights. A copyright expiring will motivate an artist to create something new a lot better than a lifelong gravy train. Copyrights never should have been made longer in term than patents. They last way too long already
- Eltharas, on 02/15/2008, -4/+9Im all for this, otherwise how will the poor "artists" afford the latest private jets with all the trimmings
- maexus, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Rich musicians/song writers are very rare. You see bands like U2 and acts like Justine Timberlake with money but they are the exception, not the rule. It's much like tv writers, most of them are not rich, but there are a few exceptions that get pushed into the public mindset.
- jabrthel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4yeah, intellectual property rights don't seem logical to me... should I have to pay compensation to the descendants of the first caveman who invented the log fire? God, I hope not. With intellectual property it's almost impossible to do anything with real material property unless I hire 100's of lawyers to sift through the patent office's files. It's also impossible to write or say anything... I sure hope that someone didn't copyright a paragraph similar to the one I'm writing now... I don't want to get sued.
- init100, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4"You shouldn't expect to have money keep rolling in when you retire if you don't keep putting out new music"
I completely agree. The reason to have copyrights is to provide an incentive to create more music. Now how much more music will be produced by having 95 years of protection than having 50 years of protection? My guess is that the difference is infinitesimal, if any at all.
Music copyrights should only be extended if it can be reliably shown that this will substantially increase the production of new music. And an extension should never be retroactive. The already-existing music was knowingly produced with the then-current protection span, so why increase it for those works?
If copyright extension never included existing works, I would guess that the pressure to periodically extend copyright term lengths would diminish substantially. - dualboy24, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5Generally a generation was thought of as 20 years because that was the median age. (Time between birth of parents and that of their offspring). But it seems that in western society that number has moved closer to 25-30 years. So it depends really on the reference. But your right 25 is more accurate these days.
- gudnbluts, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4I can't think of a single reason why "until death" would be a bad idea. The artist would get all the benefit possible out of his work, the cut off would be clear and easy to administer. With multiple authors (eg. something like a cartoon) you'd have to have some process of selecting, say three (max) primary authors and the copyright would go 'til the death of the last of them.
If people want to make a better James Bond movie now, they should be allowed to. If they want ot make a better Donald Duck cartoon now, they should be allowed to. The present system is just about concentrating money, not protecting art. - LBobRife, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5It's a rough number. 20 years is a fine estimate of a generation. Of course, people ARE waiting longer to have kids these days.
- treed, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3As fair as that might seem, can you imagine the insane amounts of work it would take to make sure something is PD?
- gypsi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3opening a new tab now...
- offspring06, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4I think 50 years is too long for copyright.
- offspring06, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3People create things all the time that have nothing to do with entertainment yet their patent only last 20 years.
- gypsi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3i'll clear it up for you - it's ridiculously excessive
- ZeroOrDie, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4Thats because Ron Paul is an old crazy *****.
- dstz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Good music, like good movies, never get old. Why is that the original Solaris is still much better than the recent American remake or most SF movies ever since ? where are the modern Ali farka Touré (hear "Radio mali"), Ali Akbar Khan, Edith Piaf, Billie Holiday, Debussy ? are there equivalents to the best hard bopers ?
Sucks to live in your tiny musical world. - jabrthel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Intellectual property laws violate rights to material property. That's why I don't like them. If I bought an album and I didn't sign/agree to any explicit contract saying I wouldn't copy it to give to my friends for free, then I should have the freedom to do so. When I do buy a cd, there is no explicit contract that would restrict me from doing so. Hence, IP laws transfers fundamental rights to my material property to the owner of some piece of intellectual property.
It would be a different story if I signed a contract that restricted the material property (a CD) that I acquired. - ElSnuggles, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2I don't understand how the argument "i should get paid for something that i did 100 years ago" is even remotely valid. This stinks of corporate greed under the guise of "protecting the musician" yet again. Yippy.
- thesandbender, on 02/15/2008, -0/+21. This just proves that it's all about the labels and not the musician. After 50 years, the singer/songwriter is probably dead.
2. Who the hell listens to music more than 50 years old but less than 100? Except for a few artists like Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, (insert your regional favorites) most artists aren't worth anything even fighting over rights. Honestly, whose going to be listening to the Pussycat Dolls in 50 years? Honestly, a few of their songs are catchy but there will be just as catchy songs in the future. - gudnbluts, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4""Until death" is a bad idea because if an artist dies young and unexpectedly, with a wife and kid, they won't be provided for. And providing for one's family is one of the main incentives for people to produce work."
That's true of anybody. Other jobs don't continue to pay the family after an employee dies. - andycr512, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Information is becoming more and more important as technology becomes more prevalent. Would I call this fascism? No. Would I call it a huge problem which has the potential to harm the knowledge of mankind? Yes.
- Denelson83, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3Money, money, money, money, money, money, money! That's all they care about!
- joebruin, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3Copyrights should not last longer than 20 years, that is plenty of time to get paid for your work. Work from the Beatles (or even Devo) should belong to the public now.
- DestroyFascism, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Yes instead of Music (etc) entering the PD after owner (artists) dies we can some rich jerk buy it like a commodity and just like the Beetles, keep them private except for the odd "compilation".....
You rich farts make me sick! - Wargalas, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3You must be new here. Digg users are CONSTANTLY accusing the US of becoming fascist for the smallest reasons. I'll let it slide this time. :)
- andycr512, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2The authorities are involved because copyright is an artificial restriction, and without any legal backing it has no meaning. Sure, they own their labor, but that doesn't give them any means to reach out and prevent -copies- of their work from being circulated without some sort of legal mechanism to prevent it - which is copyright law, in the US.
- nydwarf, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Only a corporation can possibly benefit for 95 years this is pretty see through stuff right here. It's just like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. This is all for corporations and when the copyright starts running out on things like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny these companies will just come in and ask for another extension.
- ryanonfire, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1yeah ok lets make songs from the 30's so expensive to use no one will buy them for use in movies, tv shows or covers.
- honus, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Rick Astley will live forever!!!!!
- stolenisotope1, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Must be the drugs.
- sport11rocks, on 02/15/2008, -5/+6Yes "Artists". Why do you assume all songwriters and musicians are rich? When was the last time you did anything creative?
- ein125, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1"Copyright is supposed to motivate talented people to create through temporary exclusive rights"
em, no it isn't. Copyright is there to protect the artist/musician/songwriter from having their idea ripped of.
Royalty remuneration is the way of making sure the artist/musician/songwriter receives adequate compensation for their artistic endeavor. There is a difference, please remember this.
If I was in an up and coming rock band and we got signed by a big label, we don't just get handed money. We are given an "advance". In plain English, this is a loan that we have to pay back to the record company. How do we do this? By selling albums until the debt is paid back. Once the debt of the advance is paid back then we get a split of the album sales. Until that is done, the only way to make money is through royalties and live performance. But even live performance has it's problems as to do a tour properly, there are huge expenses (advertising, crew, transport etc.) Where do we get that money from? Yeah, you guessed it, the record company will provide "Tour support" (read: another loan) that has to be paid back. Until then you won't make any money from your tour.
An advance and tour support, depending on the profile of the act can run into the millions. (I played on an album recently that cost £500,000, there was no tour support. This wasn't high profile)
Royalties are the only true method of making money as a songwriter. Copyright and royalties go hand in hand as remuneration can only be enforced through copyright.
And even then, that's the songwriters themselves. Musicians who play on these albums also get a royalty. However this royalty is tiny, but can work out ok by supplementing earnings based on performance fees. Still, though, the gross earnings of your standard session/freelance musician isn't the huge amount everyone thinks it is. What happens when these musicians have to retire and suddenly don't make any performance fees. Hopefully, they've invested in a half decent pension plan.
Overall, people have to remember that most true musicians (not the ones you see on American Idol etc.) really and truly make an average, modest, professionals wage. As someone said earlier, bands like U2, Radiohead etc. are the exception. It's not really about greed, it's more about financial stability further down the road.
Please don't confuse the recording industries drive for DRM etc. with the needs of the true musicians out there. It's just unfortunate that royalty payment comes hand in hand with copyright. - Flunk, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3Yeah because music copyright laws have so much to do with being fascist...
- IamKyle, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Brilliant ***** Idea. Thank You Mr. EU Commissioner For Being A *****.
- Reddog_x2000, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1@ Fungii, that is pretty damn funny.
- ein125, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1"How is it determined, except by arbitrary standards on a case by case basis, that one rapper's remake of a song doesn't violate copyright while another's does?"
Very simply. If a sample of an original track is used and it is over 2 seconds long. The original creator of that sample (track) must be credited and payed a due royalty. This is not about DRM etc. This is more about royalty remuneration. Once this is done correctly, there is no breach of artistic copyright.
As I have said before, it is unfortunate that DRM etc. falls under the same guise as royalty remuneration in Copyright issues. - jabrthel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I agree. A mathematician can't copyright/patent a proof and the resulting equation... so why should a pharmaceutical be able to patent an arrangement of chemicals or the process to arrange them in that way? How is it determined, except by arbitrary standards on a case by case basis, that one rapper's remake of a song doesn't violate copyright while another's does? Intellectual property rights are almost always arbitrary and hence illogical.
- gypsi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1the members of devo aren't that old and music lives on longer than it used to. 95 years is asinine.
- say592, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Thats what you think now...but the long arm of the US copy right enforcers would go to the end of deep space to rid the universe of those who wish to undermined US copyrights!
- jabrthel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Unless of course he wasn't working for anybody and was the first person ever to do that kind of job. At which point his labor in creating his idea of a job should be owned by him and whoever does that job in the future must pay him royalties for using his idea. I don't agree with that and I don't agree with intellectual property.
- ncredblstrength, on 02/18/2008, -0/+095 years? Is this so Hannah Montana can get paid when she's 120?
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is