EU to Extend Music Copyright to 95 Years
Written by Ben Jones on July 14, 2008The IFPI and mediocre artists around the world are rubbing their hands in glee, after a proposal to extend copyright in the EU for another 45 years. The proposal, intended to ‘benefit musicians’, comes up for a vote on Wednesday. On the plus side, at the same time collecting societies are going to have their practices scrutinized.
The proposal by Irish EU commissioner Charlie McCreevy, currently serving as European Commissioner for Internal Market & Services, was first proposed back in February. It aims to extend copyright protection for performing artists from 50 years to 95.
The proposal is supposed to secure the pensions of long forgotten artists. In a statement, McCreevy said “I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension.”
According to the Financial Times, the proposal could come up to vote as early as this Wednesday, July 16th. Also up for discussion would be a plan to split up rights societies by the antitrust arm of the commission, potentially making rights societies compete against each other for the rights to collect royalties from artists.
While this would certainly be a better way to curb their less than philanthropic actions, if it comes at the cost of greater copyright, is it that beneficial to the 500 million citizens of Europe? There is a glimmer of hope though. Two commissioners are opposed to the extension plan; telecoms commissioner Viviane Reding and commissioner Antonio Tajan.
The copyright extension plans met initial scorn back when they were first announced in February, with groups like the Open Rights Group and the EFF launching a petition to have it blocked, as well as a website to deal with the issue. Nevertheless, McCreevy kept on going, and the proposal is now ready to be voted on.
McCreevy himself has his pension already planned from a former partnership in a chartered accountancy firm (and he has been in politics since 1977, so he clearly planned early). It is left to wonder then why he feels the need to legislate some sort of speciality pension for artists. If they decide to stop work at 25, why should they be paid for it past 75? If that has been their only source of income, why could they not have done as the hundreds of millions of other EU citizens, myself included, and planned for their retirement?
Commissioner McCreevy had not replied to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Previously: Anti-Piracy Evidence Put in Doubt by Leecher
Next: Top 10 Most Pirated TV Shows on BitTorrent (wk28)
65 Responses
“I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to………….”
he forgets to mention that the labels will live happily for another half century on these very fees.
Bastards and sons of whores.
This is the EU version Sonny Bono copyright extension shit
my $0.2… actually, make that € because the $ just does not have the kick anymore :P
- http://www.ezee.se
What the fuck? On average, people don’t even live that long. Copyright terms are essentially sleeping periods before vast swaths of creativity are allowed to legally mobilize (at which point we will likely have to suffer another 95 years before the next batch of creativity). It’s flat out ridiculous.
Cut the copyright immediately after sales peak. That gives the artist/producer/whoever plenty of time to make their money, while still giving the rest of the world a chance to create at a relatively high rate.
95 years is more than a bit on the extreme side. i which i could get paid for something even just 50 years after i did it.
and the whole the whole “its there only income” thing doesnt really wash with me. as it says in the article, others make provisions for there pensions and so should these artists
They created something, they deserve to have their creation respected for at least the longevity of their life. If they don’t want people using something they made, why should they allow it? Come on now it’s common sense. I should hope there’s nobody out there who thinks it’s actually MORAL to download music without the consent of all those who would benefit from royalties.
Only the living needs a pension.
If the argument is that they need it for their pension then they obviously do not need it when they are dead!.
Ergo when they die of old age their copyright should be null and void. Their kids/managers will have to deal with facts of life like everyone else.
Yes it is MORAL when 99.99999% of price ends up in pockets of managers and other corporate ppl.
Make it possible to pay directly to artists – I`ll gladly do so.
“If that has been their only source of income, why could they not have done as the hundreds of millions of other EU citizens, myself included, and planned for their retirement?”
Especially since they knew about copyright expiration at the time and did nothing.
“They created something, they deserve to have their creation respected for at least the longevity of their life. If they don’t want people using something they made, why should they allow it? Come on now it’s common sense. I should hope there’s nobody out there who thinks it’s actually MORAL to download music without the consent of all those who would benefit from royalties.”
Yea they created it and as long as someone isn’t going about saying they made it then they are being respected for making it. I hope no one out there thinks it’s actually MORAL for record labels to make money off of someone else’s work.
Relying on selling music is absurd. Why not go to college like most and actually make something of yourself and your life instead of bitching at the rest of the world on why you don’t have enough money.
No public domain for you… Better get used to it cause in 50 years they will double it again and so forth as long as lobby power trumps the power of the people.
Hell a monarchy is better than the authoritarians at the EU.
Ooohhh!!! very interesting!!! Now THE PARASITES executives from the record labels (RIAA – IFPI) can continue STEALING the profits of the artists for more time, in the same way as they have done in the past four decades, paying to the artists only 7 to 14 percent from the sale of each album…
I think this argument falls flat on it’s face for the one reason that was already mentioned – the artists always knew when the copyright would expire!
Copyright Law = Guaranteed parasitic and easy life for executives from media cartels (RIAA – MPAA – IFPI – BPI)
make creative commons the only applicable copyright and decrease it to five years
“I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties.”
So this is Retrospective Legislation ???? some may be aware of how David Maxwell Fyfe railed against such things when these were the hallmark of Dictatorships, Odd how the group that stands to gain most from this, would include a fair number from a group who were the main targets of said Dictatorships
Who cares?
It’s not like people respect the copyright anyways, let them extend it for 1000 years, see if I care.
“I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings.”
If those lazy bastards haven’t done any paid work since the 50s, then screw ‘em. Cut copyright terms back so that we get more music and more artists instead of encouraging them to cut a single record and then laze about.
Spoken like people that have never created anything themselves.
Artists throughout history have been poor and many have lived tortured lives. At the very least they, and their children, should benefit from their talent and effort. Talent and effort that nurtures our lives.
> “I should hope there’s nobody out there who thinks it’s actually MORAL to download music without the consent of all those who would benefit from”
I think it is not at all immoral to pirate things. It simply means ignoring copyright law, law that I believe to me immoral.
However, I do think it is very moral to buy what you like or otherwise support the people who create in any way possible if you can afford it.
> “Artists throughout history have been poor and many have lived tortured lives. At the very least they, and their children, should benefit from their talent and effort. Talent and effort that nurtures our lives.”
Why should someone’s children get rich from a hit album their parents made? How about they do something productive themselves?
> “Spoken like people that have never created anything themselves.”
Interesting assumption, especially because you can base that on nothing really.
What is this software you keep telling us that you previously made? You may have mentioned it on another page but I haven’t seen it.
Being an artist doesn’t give you automatic rights to riches and wealth.
I dont give a f*ck if you cant afford all kinds of crazy cars and houses.. you MADE MUSIC. You didnt go out in the freezing cold and work your ass off..
F*CK YOU if you think you deserve tons of money for some music..
‘Ohh god but its so hard to make music and art..’
NOT ITS NOT YOU F*CKING IDIOT. Work one day at my job and il show you HARD.
How is it fair that people make money off something they’re born with? Not everyone can sing, not everyone can act and so on. Most of us have to try to make something of ourselves, and yet others can just open their mouth and money falls at their feet.
Not everyone has a talent that they can amaze the world with and have people spend money on it to entertain themselves. Then, these people bitch when they don’t make ENOUGH money. For Christ’s sake, grow up and take a step into reality. You’re in a business where your “friends” steal more then people of the world steal from you. Plus, no artists stays popular all the way through. At one point or another, most fall through. Now if your sorry ass had continued school and got yourself a degree, you’d probably have a solid job.
greattt!
america the land of the corruption*
nexus : That’s land of corruption ©
So, what can we do about this?
“the thousands of anonymous session musicians”
So rather than create new music, they would just persecute downloaders and force them to give them money? That’s just ridiculous.
Of course it’s not moral to download without proper compensation. But compensation is not the same thing as the price that the original creator set. The PEOPLE should be the ones to decide on compensation. There are many ways to compensate. For example, possible compensation might mean:
1. They pay some money to help them live because they like what the original creator has created
2. They buy gifts for the original creator or
3. They contact the original creator, talk to them, and give them feedback and perhaps even create works of their own as a response
The people, in the end, should be in control, and compensation, although moral, should not be forced, but rather because one feels the responsibility for caring about the original creator, and thus should be a voluntary act.
The problem is that supporters of file-sharing really have no way to get their message out, while those label companies continue with their propaganda.
You know how people donate money to church all the time? That’s the business model that the “entertainment industry” should have. There is no problem with donations – people who are really dedicated to culture will donate, and those who don’t will just be considered half-hearted. Thus, it’s social pressure to be dedicated to culture that makes people want to donate.
Besides, the people should decide on how much is the worth of something. The people are the ones who should be the judge of “what is the proper compensation for this.” Not the rights holder. It makes it more democratic, and allows people to have more say on what is good and what is not through how much they donate. It also allows people to judge people’s personal character through donating based on how much they like the original creator, so that it would be a more sociable and more human interaction rather than some kind of inhuman “culture machine.”
this whole thing is obviously a big scheme from the music publishing companies and record labels, and will never go through, but I’m surprised at the number of people knocking artists because of what a politician and lobby group said. I guess some people are a little bitter that they weren’t to go out and play metal with their peers? So there are some people who can do stuff you can’t do and they made some money from it. Big deal, that’s the case for every single other person out there in the world. Now stop whining about your life to other people on the Internet, they don’t care either. Go out and improve your life already.
AHAH What a load of CR*P! If the musicians played any decent music back in the day then they would have raked in a fortune.Its not our fault if in 95 years time their money has run out because they spent it on fancy cars etc. Maybe they should start living like the rest of us.
To tell you the truth, I cant wait for the day all the artists ‘run out of money’. I know it will never happen, but people think that’s some kind of argument against piracy..
What they don’t understand is.. I cant wait for the day.
The more unreasonable the copyright laws are, the more they will be disregarded. Want to win the war? Shorten copyright to something reasonable. Copyright holders add nails to their coffins everytime they sattle the public with more and more restrictions.
#19
There are no people that have never created anything, presupposing that creation is generally possible.
Ugh… stop the insanity…
Seriously… even 50 years is overkill… Make copyright last for 10 years at most(and while we’re on the subject… patents for 5 years). Also if you think as art bringing food to the table… it really shouldn’t… Art in any form shape or size is meant to improve the culture. Each and every person can and should contribute
to culture in their own way/time/etc…
Each artist should have a proper job but they should get rewarded for producing art… i.e. an artistic bonus or extra time off etc… if this art gets produced in the interest of overall improving culture.
So hard to make music? Anyone, even a child can create a decent tune in their heads in seconds or minutes. I can create them anytime, and I’m no musician. Can’t even read or write music nor play an instrument. I guess I wouldn’t object to becoming filthy rich, as I’m poor, and there’s a lot I could do with it. But collecting endless royalties is just obscene robbery and racketeering, like mercenary religion. I’d do it for nothing. As Paul McCartney says, it’s like a dream. So easy and fun to do, yet you get paid a fortune continually.
The Elvis and John Lennon estates are still receiving something over $5M a year in royalties, along with other old artists, or 100k a week! Imagine a 20% savings investment interest on top of that. Another $10M a year just on $50M. Conservatively, there’s at least $300,000 per week. My income is $200/wk; 1,500 times less, and I’m still trying to survive, whereas they are gone
the real issue behind control, copyright extention and all that totalitarian behaviour, is the total locking up of the market :
- lock up internet, so small artists can’t become famous, and the majors can keep doing profit out of their lame “artists”
- lock up copyright, so majors can replay things over and over again (think about the covers made by “new talents” on tv)
Also, in case some underground artist would become famous, it’s even more tempting for them to submit to a label.
The big losers in the story ? Creativity, art, artists, and the public, of course.
The only solution is a complete boycott of all the giant labels.
So they can extend copyright to billion years, if no one buys, they won’t have anything to redistribute.
While 95 years is a bit too long – after all, these performers will all be dead, it’s incorrect to suggest that the labels are getting this money. Performance rights go to performers.
I agree, make them work a lathe (me for a while) or lay bricks for a bit, a real job (also do they work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year? who else lives on royalties, no one, they get the pension from what they put in to it).
I also agree this is a fantastic way for the labels to still take the profit way after the artist is dead.
I always thought that at the 50 years piracy would start to die as it was free, guess not.
Oh well, labels 1, free world 0.
@25
Absolutely nothing since the EU doesn’t care about democracy.
Pensions? Isn’t the EU made up of socialist welfare states? Huh? I don’t know about EU countries, but aren’t session musicians paid once in a work-for-hire arrangement? This does not make much sense and needs followed up by investigative reporting.
@Drugs,
If you think you are born with the ability to make money creating music, movies, art or software, you have no concept of reality.
Have you not seen American Idol? LOL, prime example how everyone CAN NOT sing. I never said you HAD to be born with the said ability, but not everyone has a great voice. So tell me, how is that fair?
How is it fair that X person is naturally a good singer and their voice is great while I can’t sing for shit and have a horrible voice. So while I have to go to college for a degree, X can just sing for their living.
Tell me that’s not reality.
95 years..
Why not just make it for the lifetime of the artist or would that make too much sense and cut off the supply to the leeching record labels to control it for decades after the artist dies?
Have these musicians ever heard of saving for their pensions. JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON!!!.
Sorry about yelling, but I am getting so damn mad at these obviously insane new laws.
> “Shorten copyright to something reasonable.”
I’d actually care about it then.
they want thoe anti-piracy laws because they F@#ing want to censore the internet our last liberty on the planet,if you take that away from us,The EU will become a comunist country, and gues what happens in a comunist country, yes a revolution!
GOOD!!! Now we dont allow Piracy Criminals to download illegal material
>They created something,
I create something every day at work.
> they deserve to have their
> creation respected
>for at least the longevity of their
>life.
Depends on how you define “respect”.
> If they don’t want people using
>something they made, why should
>they allow it?
Because they should not decide what i do in the privacy of my home and in the circle of my friends?
>Come on now it’s common sense.
LOL
>I should hope there’s nobody out
>there who thinks it’s actually
>MORAL to download music without the
>consent of all those who would
>benefit from royalties.
Its neither moral nor immoral. Its something the author has no say at all. Yes they always are people like you who argue otherwise since it makes you money, but us other 99.9% think otherwise.
Theres nobody whos gonna stop us to communicate with each other and share information freely. No one. Remember that, bloodsucker.
as a lot of ppl have said, the truly immoral thing to do is to support all the lawsuits going on and the lobbying stripping us from our privacy rights by giving money to the labels/movie studios
I think I am going to keep torrenting regardless of whatever laws are passed but that doesn’t make it any less stupid.
for all their crap about caring for people who actually make the music, they can’t show definitive proof that the royalties they collect actually go to those people.
what about those who are already deceased? I doubt the labels hand the money willingly to the next of kin and will most likely set their hellspawn lawyers to dispute any such claims.
and for those who have no known relatives… well, the labels are more than happy to hold on to the money.
WELCOME TO THE LEGAL FORM OF CORRUPTION.
“I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to”
so has he published some verifiable figures how many of those “thousands of anonymous guys” are benefitting at the moment from the timespan in place?
And if they are anonym, how do they benefit in the first place (now or maybe then after the extension!)?
If anonymous can claim benefits, I claim to be such a musician too, who sends me my check or paypal payment to tpb.kdsde (at) googlemail (dot) com?
I’m all for creative commons. But being a musician myself, I know the time, money, and effort it takes to produce quality music. If someone wishes to get paid to for their effort than so be it.
It is True, most of the money goes to record labels which is sad. There needs to be a new system. Hint: Internet. But not paying money for music because it goes to a corporation is slightly hypercritical. Almost everything we buy goes to a corporation. Corporations which many of us work for.
But extending copyright laws 95yrs is crazy. Who’s going to listen to 95yr old music anyway. Much less want to pay for it. I agree that the artist should have “planned for their retirement” better.
95 years. I’m Laughing out loud. Just like somebody could live 95 years after producing a song. 50, well, maybe 60 years are quite sufficient. After that, who will get the money ?
Families, who would like to get benefits with a job that does not belong to them ?
Majors, who have so much money that they want ever more ?
I say, fifty years after the release of the song, there’s no more reason to feel culpability while downloading this song.
Oh, yeah, best idea : i will make a spoon, and you will need to pay me each time you use it if you want to keep eating with it. Not too bad, is it ? :D
Don’t the EU countries have national pension schemes? I believe they do. Lots of other workers have not contributed to pension schemes, do they to deserve pay for work they did 50 years ago?
Do session musicians get paid performance royalties? I don’t think that’s right. Session musicians *may* get a royalty *if* the session wasn’t paid out in full. Here in Canada, session musicians for things like adds can be paid a larger flat rate or they can be paid after each term for which the rights are renewed.
I don’t think this applies to ordinary session musicians on a recording. It does, however, apply to the name artists, composers, and sometimes the publishers.
Someone should check the facts for the EU on this. These change from country to country. They are certainly not the same between Canada and the United States.
My contention is that no one deserves to be paid over and over for a single work session.
df
The real fallacy of this is assuming that any artist will ever see a single cent of this money. Nobody but the distributors profit from this. In fact, they’re going to get money for doing absolutely nothing for another 50 years. The only way for artists to make money reliably is performing.
Session musicians are support personnel who are paid cash for their work. They can be employees of recording studios (getting salary and pension) or hired as independent contractors. They do not own copyright, and unlike signed artists, they do not get paid royalties of any kind. (Often their names do not even appear in the credits.)
Therefore, extending copyright would not affect session players in the slightest.
The vast majority of the time, the copyright is owned by the record label – not the artist – so it is the record labels who will be principal beneficiary from longer copyrights. Recording artists only get a tiny percentage paid out as a royalty – the label keeps the lions’share of money.
Why, hello there, Charlie McCreevy!
Welcome to the list of politicians bought and payed for by the copyright cartel.
I think the funniest part is that he’s even trying to pretend it’s all for the sake of the poor artists. Yes, Mr.McSleezy, I’m sure all those amazingly long-lived session musicians who must’ve started out work as a fucking zygote can rest easy, now, thanks to you.
This man, he’s real philanthropist.
“23 Jul 15, 2008 at 03:27 by nexus
greattt!
america the land of the corruption*”
You did realize that this article is about proposed EU legislation?
(EU means European Union)
Oh, and the US of A isn’t an EU member state.
It’s true what they say; Copyright is Theft
95 YEARS! I am sorry, but if a song has not gotten it’s money and isn’t still getting money in the FIRST year, it is a dead song, and should fall into the public domain.
The concept that a person can be paid for the rest of their lives for a single achievement would result in the disintegration of society.
Make a few good management decisions, then retire to the yacht. Setup an email server and get royalties for every email going in and coming out. Laughable, and obvious in it’s stupidity, but directly parallel what they’re proposing above.
The Mark of Cain work regular jobs and create their music in their spare time, and they’re not an entirely unknown band. That’s the way it should be, because they’re creating their art to satisfy their souls – which is the only true artistic endeavour. Art for the sake of making money is not art, and deserves nothing.
need to make it illegal to “rip” music from cd’s and fine the music without a license.
$ for nothin and your ckicks for free.
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.