What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Audition for 2009 Holiday Campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy0 - The making of Best Buy's holiday campaign. Real employees 'Jingle Belling' their way to a stardom.
53 Comments
- vptel, on 01/25/2009, -1/+26If it pleases the group I'd like to start the discussion with ***** RIAA
- Swivelstick, on 01/25/2009, -0/+18Yeah especially in the afterlife that gets really expensive.
- venom8599, on 01/25/2009, -0/+15Extending copyright on anything is a bad idea. 50 years is long enough.
- smacksaw, on 01/25/2009, -0/+10How about...we extend copyright, but the publishing goes to the composer and CANNOT be owned by a label, ever?
- SeaMowse, on 01/24/2009, -1/+11Are copyright laws the same in the States, as they are in Europe? I know that Australia has their own, liberal rules regarding copyright.
As far as this goes - I'm not sure if it would be a completely bad idea or not. Actually, all work older than 50 years isn't necessarily 'free'. The music itself is free, but the arrangement isn't. I think the copyright laws for the music differ than the copyright laws for the arrangement.
All I know is to even purchase music - perhaps even 10 seconds of it, for a film, can cost you thousands of dollars. It's best to go to Creative Commons or some other highly reputable places, if you want decent music for your films. Provided you don't have the bucks to spend. - TheBeerLady, on 01/25/2009, -1/+10I'm still trying to figure out how extending copyright somehow benefits session musicians - does the man expect us to believe that the session musicians are also the copyright holders?
- portnoy, on 01/25/2009, -0/+9Do I understand this correctly, copyright runs for nearly a century to compel artists to create new works? So the equivalent in the "real world" would be for a worker to work say, a month, and then be paid for the rest of his life? How does that same inducement compel working people to sit on their dead backsides doing nothing but compel "artists" to create more creative works? Obviously I'm missing something really simple here huh?
- dsmx, on 01/25/2009, -0/+6Why should their heirs benefit? They didn't do anything to deserve that money.
- exspasticcomics, on 01/25/2009, -0/+6this is clearly for the record companies & not the musicians. modern day copyright is designed only really to benefit corporations in this day & age. I'm not even sure how you can mention benefiting an artist & the words '95 years' in the same sentence. if I recorded my hit song when I'm like- 20 years old... I'm a pretty lucky dude if I'm even around to collect a paycheck when I'm 115 years old. maybe my family would benefit from this- but we all know that the paycheck isn't ever going to reach their mailbox to begin with. it's just a silly time frame to begin with...
& people wonder why the record industry is going under.... - Travelsonic, on 01/25/2009, -0/+5Oh look, another person missing the point.
Attack the information, not the source.
Buried. - WibWobble, on 02/02/2009, -1/+5WTF has this got to do with anything SeaMowse, or the article, said?
- tmsbrdrs, on 01/25/2009, -0/+4@x1soundgarden1x
Patents can be extended, it's part of patent law. You can sell the patent to someone else or deed the patent to someone else and that person can extend the patent. I say we make copyright laws the same. Rather than just giving the copyright to the heirs for 70 years after death, we should at least make them work that hard for it. 10 years is more than enough time for them to have made enough money off the media in order to extend the copyright in the same way as patents are extended. After the 10 years, if they don't see fit to extend it within 48 hours or have made arrangements for it to be extended within a reasonable amount of time, the media should fall into public domain. - Travelsonic, on 01/25/2009, -0/+3Damn those people who miss the point, and distract people from the real topic.
- dsmx, on 01/25/2009, -1/+4I fail to see why copyright laws should be longer than patent laws, I'd bring copyright down to 10 years because something that has very little in the way of production costs or research doesn't need to be protected for a long period of time.
- bambooshoot, on 01/25/2009, -0/+3Sorry, I missed the part where this article mentioned DRM
- Ratteler, on 01/25/2009, -0/+250 Years is way to long. 10 years is reasonable.
- Travelsonic, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2"A) 50 years is not 'nearly a century'"
Of course here in the states it is author's life PLUS 90 years - which means essentially, yes, copyrights can last well over a century. - brandita, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2Movie night, my house.
- bambooshoot, on 01/25/2009, -1/+3A) 50 years is not 'nearly a century'
B) The difference between art and "real world" work is that art is timeless, people can benefit from it limitlessly, we still listen to Beethoven's work almost two hundred years after the guy died; your "real world" work is useful only for a limited time. - UtahPirate, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2Oh, let's be fair, here... it's actually closer to $1 to produce everything including the nice graphics in the jewel case and the printed CD... $11.75 is an exaggeration! My gosh, man! It's only $11 in pure profit! ;-)
Seriously, when an artist dies, their legacy should be art, not money. They should pass on their knowledge of art to the next generation, not ensure that their kids can be paid for work their kids didn't do. It's nice to think about, leaving a financial legacy, but that should be wise investment of the proceeds, not ensuring that proceeds are an investment.
Talk about trying to ensure that your kids don't appreciate what you leave them... sheez! (and that part is serious, folks... no smiley after it) - dsmx, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2yeh it's called the record companies.
- UtahPirate, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2Thanks, Travelsonic... now let me tackle B...
B) The difference between "art" and "crap" is probably closer to what you mean. We still listen to the Beatles in music class... and Elvis... what differentiates the art is how people appreciate it long after its usable period (which is somewhat less than lifetime +90 years). A few studies show that the ideal term is 14 years for copyright, yet these studies routinely get ignored because it's politically appropriate to do so.
"Real world" work, as you've defined it, cannot be considered art, and therefore should not be protected under copyright. There is no differentiation under the law between "real world" and "timeless" art, and you are splitting hairs that don't need to be split. Art is art, whether timeless or "real world" and should be protected equally... for 14 years after its creation, and permanently where attribution is concerned (an artist's right to be recognized should be absolute, while derivation should not be). - Gndoab, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2the original term of 5 years is good. That way the people that are truly creative and who continue to create culture that benefits society can do it as a job. The people who just get lucky will have to find another line of work.
On top of that, after 5 years, it turns to the market. If someone can make a better storyline or a more intriguing piece of art, or a better way to use the lyrics, etc, then they will make the money. Where is the incentive to make good on your copyright if you are the only one who will be able to use it for the next 100 years?
Imagine if any joe schmoe could use Mikey Mouse in their movies. Sure, there would be ton's of junk, true, but every now and then someone would come up with something genius, and disney would have to compete. - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1Give them 5 years and they'll take 100.
Typical of the Hollywood Copyright Cabal.
Berman, Rosen, Oppenheim. Foreign names, sounds like the "Russian" mafia is involved in the music distribution cartels. Sounds crazy? Ask Pellicano, or Gus Boulis, which mob is the boss of the Italian mobs... - writie, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1"but we all know that the paycheck isn't ever going to reach their mailbox to begin with."
Sorry, one last thing. There are a few cases where performers and/or writers have gotten very protective of copyrights. David Bowie owns nearly all his masters. Jacques Brel's family has spent years hounding the owners of recordings to get back the copyrights and now administer them very successfully. I hear the Womack family do the same (Womack & Womack, Bobby Womack and I don't who else).
But it must be said that they are very much the exception, and I also doubt that most families are equipped to deal with the complexities of the music biz. - brandita, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1By extending copyright we would only be letting the kids and the grandkids suck on the nipple of the estate even longer.
- writie, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1Ex: great research there. I simply took the biggest songwriters (sub-genre: dead) as an example. I didn't realise Porter had no direct descendants. And Gershwin not leaving a will was a little silly. But musicians are notorious for mishandling their assets, for want of a better word.
Nonetheless, what I was getting at is that there are authors' rights involved in music copyright. And they will be passed down for the relevant amount of time, largely irrespective of the publisher or the owner of the sound recording.
There was a case in France last year where an extremely healthy 90 year-old Henri Salvador actually outlived some of his sound copyrights. He sued a budget compilation company for releasing old material as they did so in such a shoddy way that it affected his image he said (this despite the fact that he was still earning on the authors' side). However, France and Germany recognise what is called "moral rights", which means companies cannot do whatever they want with material.
The case was arguable, but he did win it. This is straying away from the original thread about copyright in sound recordings, but I thought it was interesting. - Ratteler, on 01/25/2009, -1/+2They mean CensorRight. The Right to censor what information we are allowed to share with each other based on Economic Persecution. It's a way to prevent the public from having access to the same culture knowledge base and make them easier to control with Broadcast mass Media.
When we all have access to the same media, we also tend to be more democratically competent. Something the power structure simple cannot allow. - exspasticcomics, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1I don't take issue with families benefiting from copyright- for a time.. but clearly these extensions (for insane amounts of years..) are not being put in place for copyright holders- but for companies & corporations. - & you can't live off of someones shadow forever....
also- your listening tastes required a bit of Wikipedia time on my part (lol..) & unfortunately- don't go far in proving your point. it's one thing to say 'estate' & it's another thing to know who or what 'estate' constitutes. over 1/2 Cole Porter's estate mainly goes to a friend's family (no relation...) the other half goes who-knows-where (which probably means record companies & maybe a distant relative or 2..)
George Gershwin's never left a will or anything... so his mom got everything... & that's getting passed now to relatives. thing is-he died without any legal paper on who-gets-what & you know big business is going to try & get as much as they can if they have/had the chance.
..or in short- it's great if someone's kid can go to college because uncle Cole left something for her after he died... but like I said... who's the paycheck really going to on these estates- & what's a 'reasonable' time frame here.
p.s. sonny bono & his copyright policy sucks. LOL..... - Ratteler, on 01/27/2009, -0/+1I stand corrected. Hell... I'll go a step further. The once the RIAA pays for their unimaginable crimes against the people of the world, and specifically the U.S.A., I would let them keep a buck in profit for every album sold.
Of course... this would have to be after every penny made by those currently in charge was taken in reparation, and those individuals were permanently banned from working in media in any form ever again. - Ratteler, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1Oh look, a CensorRight schill complaining about the people wanting to retain their rights to free speech.
Yes. Buried indeed. - Travelsonic, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1"Say that when you've written a best-selling book and..."
This is no excuse to ignore common sense and reasoning and replace it with hysterics, x1s. - UtahPirate, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1There is one national copyright standard here in the US, though all laws are prosecuted at the state level. Makes for slightly confusing jurisprudence, but we make it work.
- Travelsonic, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1"Damn those retarded parrots who have no idea what their saying."
Yeah seriously, especially when they don't know when they are talking about themselves. - writie, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1The estates of the Gershwins and Cole Porters of the world benefitted handsomely from their music.
- Ratteler, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1The RIAA has no problem damning them to >$.25 on an 12 CD sale, which then THEN steal for the cost of producing and marketing the CD.
$11.75 pure profit for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. - portnoy, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1Which I guess would mean that if Mr. Benz had gotten a copyright on the automobile we would still be touring around in what would be recently built 1885 Benz Motorwagens.
- UtahPirate, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1ISP's don't have to enforce copyright because this would imply that they're allowed to monitor traffic. All they have to do is to listen to copyright enforcers and comply with notifying their users via the DMCA takedown notice system. Anything else they do, they're doing because they feel like it. Thanks for the update on Cox, I'll be sure never to use them.
- writie, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1Session musicians in many countries are allowed to share in revenue, by the way.
- ZachsMind, on 01/25/2009, -0/+0Several studies have also shown that air contains some oxygen. Do we really need studies to tell us that current copyright law stifles creativity, restricts competition, and adversely affects the marketplace? I mean sure, what happened to Siegel and Shuster over Superman was terrible. I'm not condoning that. However, what Disney has become after Walt Disney died? That's just as terrible. We need laws that will keep both extremes from happening.
Yes I'm aware this thread is about music. I was just using DC Comics and Disney as examples of copyright issues in more general terms. Pretty much every mashup I've heard has been fun. Even the bad ones are still pretty good, cuz it's just cool to hear two different songs that may have nothing in common suddenly fit together in new and exciting ways. Current copyright law wants to stifle such expression. - opticwind, on 01/25/2009, -4/+4Uh, no offense (and you know..down with DRM and all that)...but I don't exactly trust torrentfreak.com for accurate news on the effectiveness of DRM.
- freakFlag, on 01/25/2009, -0/+0***** THE RIAA
- UtahPirate, on 01/26/2009, -1/+1Fornication Under Consent of the King, or For Unlawfully Carnal Knowledge? Or a new acronym? The all-caps gave away that it stands for something. ;-)
Seriously, I think the attitude isn't bad, but who is really going to do anything about it? Nobody's stepped up to the plate yet and decided to run for office on the basis that RIAA is evil, but everyone likes to talk about it. Someone wanna run in the Pirate Party and see if we can't actually get someone to think about why things are the way they are for a change, instead of just going along with it for the sake of continuation. - writie, on 01/26/2009, -1/+1Art is also free. If you think you can do better, feel free.
- writie, on 01/26/2009, -1/+1Nobody's going to put much effort into something with a sell-by date of 5 years. It takes between 3 and 6 to get a movie into production already.
"Where is the incentive to make good on your copyright if you are the only one who will be able to use it for the next 100 years?" Keeping songs in the public ear is a job in itself. That's why someone invented music publishers, so that writers can go back to writing and not be on the corner of the street pan-handling. - inactive, on 01/25/2009, -2/+1MAN! What a concept! I love it.
Of course labels will hate your for this.
(FBI WARNING: This comment is copyrighted, all rights reserved DO NOT READ - 2009 to Infinity © Even if you digg this article without monetary gain you will still found guilty and punished with up to 5 years in jail and a fine of $250,000) -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is