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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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 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.

I’d actually care about it then.

Sorry about yelling, but I am getting so damn mad at these obviously insane new laws.

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.

If you think you are born with the ability to make money creating music, movies, art or software, you have no concept of reality.

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.

- 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.

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

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.

There are no people that have never created anything, presupposing that creation is generally possible.

What they don’t understand is.. I cant wait for the day.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s not like people respect the copyright anyways, let them extend it for 1000 years, see if I care.

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