02.14EU proposes extending music copyrights to 95 years
A European Union official is proposing extending music copyrights from 50 years to 95 years, the same as the U.S. EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy says artists who recorded songs in the 1950s or 1960s are in now in danger of losing what could be “their sole pension.”
That’s kind of an interesting question: on the one hand, ever-lengthening copyright terms can be a blunt instrument used to club future innovators into submission (isn’t it a little ridiculous to tell some historically-minded remixer that he has to pay royalty fees on a 90-year-old piece of music?). On the other hand, our copyright and royalty system does allow people to, in essence, retire on a particularly successful piece or body of work, and perhaps draw an income they couldn’t otherwise draw.
It’s hard not to be cynical: is this kind of rhetoric a blatant attempt to tug on our heartstrings so we’ll think that a mere 50 years of copyright protection will throw helpless old people out on the streets? Or, in fact, did these artists record music before the time when the record labels were getting fat off most of their profits and throwing them the scraps and bones? That is, are there enough people literally living off airplay royalties to justify keeping massive bodies of music out of the public domain for another 45 years? What do you think?
4 Responses to “EU proposes extending music copyrights to 95 years”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is the same nonsense that extended copyright in the US to allow Disney to hold on to the Mickey Mouse copyright. What I don’t think lawmakers realize is that copyright is USELESS if it’s not enforceable, and the technology is moving much, much faster than the law.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am
This may seem cold and a little heartless, but shouldn’t the artist be responsible for planning for their future?
I know that just hoping that my company pension and Social Security would be enough for retirement would be irresponsible. Therefore, musicians shouldn’t think that their first number one hit is going to lead to a phenomenal music collect similar to the one The Beatles amassed. They should set a portion of their royalties aside for the future. Even if they have just one hit that allows them to live comfortably for a while, think about how much better old age would be thanks to the miracle of compound interest on the money they set aside.
As far as living off of airplay royalties, I don’t see how they can do it. There is too few stations playing anything older that they 1990s.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I am firmly in David’s camp on this one. Who died and made musicians, and other creators of publicly consumed intellectual property, immune from having to save for retirement? Sheesh!
I have a friend who struggles to make a living as a musician and is in that steep curve to overnight success in his late thirties. But hey, that was his choice. Working in an office banging out spreadsheets and project plans, or running effective meetings would bore him stupid.
I just don’t see how you go from encouraging artists to lifetime plus royalties. Just being an “artiste” doesn’t give you license to NOT SAVE FOR YOUR OWN DANG RETIREMENT. I don’t want to hear about your artistic sensibilities and how your craft and your muse don’t leave you any free time to put some money away. That’s crap and we all know it.
Of course what’s at the heart of this is NOT artist compensation. It’s about the publisher or rights holder getting a cut. To which I say: If, after 50 flippin’ years, you STILL haven’t covered costs and made a handsome profit off the talent of the artist you signed then man you done a bad job and you are not deserving of any additional compensation. Move on!
Ahem.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Why should the still be getting money from work they did 50 years ago? And in any case doesn’t copyright last until death + 25 years or something absurd like that?
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am