Music Copyright ‘Pension Extension’ Moves Forward

Ben Jones
February 13, 2009
72
copyright term,
eu,
mccreevy
Print

The extension of copyright on audio recordings from 50 to 95 years in the EU has moved another step closer to realization, with its passage through the legal affairs committee. The action, ostensibly to provide a pension for session musicians, is in reality a multi-million euro windfall for the Big Four record companies.

EU royalties There is little doubt that the the current ‘hot topic’ in copyright circles is the upcoming Pirate Bay trial. The trial, which has been termed ‘the Political Trial of the Decade‘ has been covered extensively by most news sites, including here at TorrentFreak. With the media focus thus diverted, it seems the EU might be trying to slip something through without notice.

The Legal Affairs Committee in the European Parliament has approved the resolution to extend the copyright term, as we have discussed in the past, from 50 years to 95 for recordings. This will now move on to a plenary vote in March.

Opposition for the extension has been considerable. Last month, the Open Rights Group (ORG) held a roundtable with several academics and MEPs, including at least one member of the Legal Affairs Committee, while scathing critiques on the proposal have appeared in influential newspapers over the past year.

Crucially, the main ‘benefit’ touted by Commissioner McCreevy – that it’s for the benefit of session musicians and the like – is significantly weakened by an amendment from the committee that gives the administration over to collecting societies. Of course, that’s assuming you can prove your entitlement to this money. According to veteran producer and musician Mike Collins, speaking at the ORG roundtable, records relating to session musician participation were not common until recently.

Perhaps worst of all, the commission has now been asked by the committee to perform an impact study based around extending the term of video performances by a similar amount. Although the study will doubtless find that there will be little benefit to any but the major content producers in performing such an extension, it will likely be ignored (as the study that said the same thing in this case was ignored) and the proposal will proceed.

There is a slight ray of hope though, in that there is a requirement to review the social situation of artists in 3 years time, and then every 4 years, to see how this has improved things. This might curtail any further extension on this subject, but the non-existent change in artist benefits from this, might prompt them to put things back how they were. Or, they could decide to make the terms even longer….

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

mister_playboy

So now we have a copyright period quite a bit longer than a person’s average life expectancy…

It’s almost as if only something that could exist longer than that would benefit… say, a corporation?

None of us will live to see ANYTHING else enter the public domain (except through good will) at this rate.
“Fungo”

“So now we have a copyright period quite a bit longer than a person’s average life expectancy…”

No you do not – read the article. The first line will suffice. Damn…

“With the media focus thus diverted, it seems the EU might be trying to slip something through without notice.”

Heavy emphasis on “might” methinks – this has been a matter of public record for weeks at least before this TPB trial became newsworthy. It’s hardly sneaking through: the post later includes: “while scathing critiques on the proposal have appeared in influential newspapers over the past year.”

Was this article rushed or something?
El Hijo del Duce

Oh goody so a recording of Marconi is now going to copyrighted?
Anonymous

Copyrights don’t mean shit if they are not recognised by the majority of consumers. Go ahead and extend your worthless copyrights.
welp

I have given up on humanity and government long ago, I am a pirate because I do not agree with the way things are.

I dont care what you think I am, I will resist no matter what it takes. You may think im wrong, you may think im foolish, it doesnt matter, I am still here and Im still doing it..

Deal. With. It.
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“Opposition for the extension has been considerable.”
But is it strong enough? There hardly seems to be any POLITICAL struggle against such things like this, and so far, the only places in which there is some political struggle are Sweden and Spain.
United Hackers Association

and how does that benefit society at all.
now YOU nor the next generation will benefit as the copyright terrorists continue there march to screwing up culture
United Hackers Association

OH YA know why they need that extension is cause THEY SUCK at creating art of any kind.

THEY SUCK.
Wolfy

“Provide a pension for musicians”

So, at best, a musician in their twenties will be entitled to royalties when theyre 20 + 95 = 115 years old? Eh, did the average life expectancy go up by about 3 or 4 decades while I was looking the other way?
http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com Ben Jones

Fungo, indeed, it’s been talked about for a while (and we’ve had several pieces about it here) but the announcements of the votes, and the moving forward is kept quiet.

I don’t think many of the groups and organisations opposed to this extension knew of the vote before it happened, so it that sense, it’s being slipped through on the quiet. Definitive dates and timelines for this measure are nowhere to be found. It’s in this way that it can be both ‘well known’ (to give widespread general critisism) but slipped through (so that the details of the passage are not known well enough to give useful direct opposition).
Fight_the_Tyranny

Copyright laws are irrelevant. It matters not if they cover a millennia, as they would still be irrelevant. These laws are effectively written by the copyright industries, and passed by corrupt and self-serving politicians.

Copyright only has power as long as it is recognised by the people.
NubCakes

“OH YA know why they need that extension is cause THEY SUCK at creating art of any kind.

THEY SUCK.”

After you stopped yelling your crap please explain to me why you even care then.

If ***THEY SUCK*** that much – and any kind sucks according to you – then surely you aren’t going to download anything let alone purchase it.

Unless you’re one of those blabbermouths that seem somewhat common round here trying to justify piracy with reasons other than “it’s free, easy, plentiful and I don’t want to give any money to the artist if I can help it” which is really why most people pirate.

… because like it or not, facts are that artists sign up with (and aspire to)record labels *despite* there being this completely free p2p/downloading system available to them. They do that because they get tangible benefits from record labels – one of them being money.

Although I bet some twat is going to argue after this of course. Probably something along the lines of “artists are getting SCREWED over by labels” – and of course they’ll completley avoid the topic of why the artist chose to get screwed over rather than jump on their home PC and spread their music via p2p.

People here actually self-delude themselves that much that they make the arguement that generally artists (for some unstated reason) would choose to lose bigtime (going to labels) and also go the route of doing much more work (labels).

Like they cant just admit “it’s easy, enjoyable and FREE” but rather spout such “wisdom” as: “artists get screwed by labels”, “greedy fatcats”, “I support artists by downloading” (as opposed to getting same thing but paying) … etc. etc.
Anonymous

Nubcakes,

You makes a flawed assumption that copyright is acceptable. for copyright to work it has to take away the rights of every other person on the planet and assign them to a select few. this is an injustice. please read:http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=171 for a better explanation than mine.

they are not entitled to earn a living from music anymore than anyone else is entitled to choose a job and profit from it. if they can’t find a way to do that without copyright then they should do something else with their lives. to keep the status quo they will have to invade the privacy of the vast majority of people. because most people understand intuitively that it is THEIR rights being taken away from THEM. that they are in fact taking nothing from the so called rights holder, so they ignore copyright.
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

@Nubcakes
If you are going to argue that, then you best procure some evidence that labels are better than P2P. The fact that some artists happen to sign with labels is no evidence that it is a good decision in the first place.
Brilliant Death

“Intelligence and decency aren’t here at the moment. Leave a message after the beep and, should they EVER return, they will get in touch with you. BEEP.”

Yes, I was just wondering what’s with this proposed new copyright law? Clearly the artist won’t be there to benefit in 95 years, hence it’s obviously purely for the benefit of the record industry. Why is it even being considered? Are the record companies paying well for passivity, or are politicians and their kin just extremely stupid? Do get back to me, because I’m fascinated to get an answer.

BEEP.
SNF

Well we all knew this were at the agenda.

In Sweden it’s been under wraps some time but leaked awhile ago (no major website or newspaper picked up the story) from opposite politican!
The Video part was new however.

@15 Brilliant Death
Yes they are paying of our politicans. No most politicans aren’t stupied, just greedy.

Sidenote: In politics it isn’t called bribes, it’s called lobbyism, so you can’t accuse them for taking bribes, etc.

SNF – Stupidity Never Fails
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“Are the record companies paying well for passivity, or are politicians and their kin just extremely stupid? Do get back to me, because I?m fascinated to get an answer.”
Simple answer: people do not oppose it. They take things like this laying down. If people opposed things like this more, then things like this could never pass.
Reasoned Mind

First, we will work to extend copyright terms so that all digital artists, their heirs and their agents may benefit from and pass on their works in precisely the same manner that investors benefit from their earnings, landowners benefit from their land or real estate developers benefit from their buildings. Carpenters build houses, license their use as rentals, sell the rights outright or pass them along to their children and no one complains. Digital property is the house we build and it is no less valid than the carpenters work.

Second, we will criminalize infringement and update punishment to meet with this new degree of crime and the scale of the damages. When infringement was difficult or a copy was imperfect, the lessor penalties reflected that. Now that pirates are using technology to circumvent old law, new laws will be written and passed to criminalize this behavior and the punishments made far more severe as befits the crime. This is only a matter of time.

And finally, we will filter the network, throttle your connection, surveille your web history, monitor your usage, license encryption, search your personal devices and respond to your criminality with a fury of righteousness equal to the sanctity of our digital property ownership. Infringement will become the legal, moral and ethical equivalent of the theft of any material object.

And we will never rest until this is done. We create and control this property while you merely consume it, and so the governments are listening and our heirs will continue the fight. Digital artists are second class to no one, and eventually, material owners will no longer have more secure rights, protections or punishments for trespass than we do.
Pete

Reasoned Mind
That name is a joke…and do you really believe all your garbage yourself? I don’t think so. We will…we will…pathetic.
SEED!

SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDD THE SHIT OUT OF IT!!!!
MM

Why not just make the copyright permanent! now they will just have extend it another 50 years in 50 years. Whats the point of bribing democracy officials if one can not get the job done!

PUBLIC DOMAIN IS OVER RATED. And if you sing happy birthday and don’t send royalty money you are a damn dirty theif!
Dingo_RG

A question For ‘NubCakes’, who is the SAME stupid called ‘Reasoned Mind’, who also is the SAME imbecile called ‘freetard’, who also is the SAME asshole called ‘Sam I Am’.

I have a music collection of approximately 1000 original music CDs bought with my money and hard work.

All of them (with a few rare exceptions) are RIAA music, and I have uploaded to the internet around 150 of them, in the highest quality VBR setting available in this moment (Lame mp3 encoder, version 3.98.2, VBR VO).

And, I am going to upload around 400 of my CDs for this year 2009. :-)

My question is this:

What do you think to make on the matter? :-)
ANONYM00SE

First…I would like to thank TF for always attempting to keep the public updated in such a diverse subject as what “File Sharing” has become.

My opinion remains that the “Sharing”(Alternating use of an inherently finite good) of a “File”(A block of arbitrary information, or resource for storing information.) is perfectly fine.

A global population of apprx. 6.8 billion of which 1.463 billion are internet users(21%). Out of all the internet users most(51%) are casual and will neither take the time nor have the desire to learn about anything more than “How to Google” or use a social communications interface “Facebook/Myspace”. Leaving us with 10% of a global population, most(51%) of which have a job..a family…friends…priorities that do not allow for the time required to download and share every single release ever created by any and or all release group/s(Not to mention all the nameless crap floating around P2P). Leaving behind a very small set of internet users. This “Set of users” is not a set of pirates. Far from it, this set includes all the “legit/legal” file sharing users. The actual set of “20th Century Literate Pirates” is so small that if the gigantore media companies actually embraced the statistics produced by these users they might actually learn something about what their doing right/wrong or even what to make/create in the first place. Large companies claim loss of revenue. Loss of revenue on a very bad album kept completely secret apart from one good/commercial song that makes the sales for the album even happen. Preying on curiosity and the gullibility of human nature and integrating that type of sale strategy should be the real issue on the legal debate.

I’ve been “File Sharing” for many years and I still *sometimes* purchase a cd/movie/video game(not for the purpose of putting on the net).

If a media company records an album or produces a movie…..the second that artwork *created by the artists and owned by GOLIATH* is transfered over to a computer and the first digital version is made, any reproduction made internally is still “copying”.

Open a text file on your computer and type “DATA”…save it as a txt file called data.txt. You own that file, but you do not own the file on another persons computer or disk named data.txt that contains the exact same txt information. If you decide to make 56 000 “copies” of an album and ship them around the world…you lost the ownership of the “DATA” on the disc when I purchased it! I purchased a “COPY”!

When I purchase a video game and the creators/publishers decide to include something on the disc that is not a playable part of the data and is used for another purpose…Identifying/protecting….whatever you want to call it….I call it an invasion of my home!

All this to say…”I do not recognize your copyright laws”

Freedom of religion still exists…right?

sorry it was soooo long
hmmm

That’s that sort of laws that justify labels into releasing old music for extreme prices.

Last time I went to a cd shop I wanted to buy a 4 cds boxset of a jazz pianist who died like 40 years ago, it was on a big label (warner or emi), and it was sold for 70€

I mean, WTF.
ked

Seems like a lot of you are making a big deal out of something that won’t have any effect on you at all. So you download music. How often are you downloading a song that’s more than 50 years old? Probably hardly ever. So how is this going to affect you?

It’s not. It’s going to affect people who make use of older recordings that have passed into the public domain. For example, some student who’s making a movie for a film class who wants to use some song from the 40′s. Or a musician who wants to sample some old music, but doesn’t want to deal with record companies, so he samples 50+ year old music.

90% of you are overreacting. If you’re worried about copyright law, worry about it becoming stricter, not about it becoming longer. Extending copyrights on audio recordings from 50 to 95 years is akin to shooting 50 spit wads at an attacking bear, saying “Oh God, that didn’t kill it! I’ll shoot 45 more, lets see if that’ll work!” If the EU thinks this will help prevent piracy (doubtful), they’re wrong.

That all being said, I still think copyright law these days is a complete joke. For certain things it still works. Books, for example. I can’t go retype up a Dan Brown book and publish it as my own. But I sure as hell could retype it and share it as a torrent. I’ll start being concerned about stuff like this when copyright law starts dictating how many times I can listen to a mp3 I purchased, or how many times I can watch a DVD I bought.
ked

addition: hmmm’s post is probably the only one that makes sense here, but it still doesn’t make a LOT of sense. You’re not paying for the copyright. Even if the music has become public domain, it’s likely that the actual CD is being put together by a record company. They’re not going to say, “Oh, this music is no longer copyrighted. Guess we’ll have to stop selling it for $20.” There ARE cheaper versions of that music out there. You’re just not going to get the same quality. Look at all the classical music albums out these days. The vast, vast majority of them were written centuries ago, but a “good” version (ie. with a good orchestra, good production, etc), is still going to run you probably at least $15.
Anonymous

Why don’t you stop trolling Torrent Freak already, NubCakes?

Oh, wait… That’s what you’re payed to do. I forgot for a minute that you work for the RIAA. Sorry! My bad!
Anonymous

>>>53313

@27

that’s out of order, NubCakes has given us alot of advice and thought provoking opinions..i don’t see what YOU’VE done recently?
TerribleTony

Ah the death-throes of an outdated and broken system continues. Soon it will all be over.
Brilliant Death

Ahh, but ked, perhaps we would like the children of the following generations to have free, legal access to music from the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, etc. Then again, I agree that this law will be relatively impotent. We all know that copyright is going to lose in the end. Viva socialism.
As for attempting to morally justify file-sharing, I don’t bother these days. Illegal downloading has enriched me as a person, if that’s ‘immoral’ then immorality seems to be the way to go. It’s difficult to see who I’m hurting – I guess the law-makers will have to draw me some diagrams.
Reasoned Mind

I agree, #28, NubCakes is one of the very few here with routine cogent observation and commentary. And while my post at #18 is intentionally provocative, it’s not far off from reality and only Roze appears to comprehend the implication. Digital artists all over the globe are banding together and lobbying their representatives to establish reasonable and fair business practices that mirror those long established in the real world. There has never been a good reason why working in digital should place the creator at risk, while working in bricks and mortar should reap better reward.

We all have a vested interest in an open and free society, whether online or off. Offline, legal accountability to our actions is a standard in all but the most lawless of societies. The online world is newer and still sorting itself out but no one here has ever made a reasonable case why the internet should remain lawless or why privacy laws should facilitate anonymous online crime of any sort.

Whether copyright infringement or illegal hacking, the misuse of proprietary data or even cyber bullying, little by little the legal precedents are revealing themselves and the countries of the world are slowly knitting together into online accountability. ACTA will be a big step forward and you can bet it is coming.

It’s a testament to the wise and slow-moving nature of justice that 9 years after Napster, the internet still remains a haven of illegal behavior. Not for much longer. Certainly this will not be indefinite and were it your work and your income being eroded by “theft is the new business model” lol, you’d be on the phone to your congressman, too.

“Pathetic”, Pete#19, this is not. In fact, digital artists are better organized and more persuasive the world over than anything pirates have ever advanced beyond “you’ll never stop us.”

Oh really? We shall see about that.
#46

Copyright is meant as a stimulant for innovation, not as a welfare for musician stupid enough to make only one song.

Session musician were paid for their session(s) and don’t get any royalties anyway.

It’s a lie.
Pingback: meneame.net
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

In a nutshell, “Reasoned Mind” says, “blah blah blah… Copyright holders are second class to no one because they are first class to everyone else because they are somehow superior to all those inferior non-copyright holders and therefore should have special privilege, and control over everyone else blah blah blah…”
Reasoned Mind

Actually Roze, an accurate parsing of my post above says none of that and you’d do well to stick to the issues. I never suggested those who create within a digital realm are superior to those who do not, rather, I said there is no justifiable reason to consider digital creators somehow second class to creators working within a material realm.

I also never suggested special privileges be afforded creators of IP, rather I am saying that the same creators rights exercised by the carpenter or the real estate developer should also be afforded a creator of intellectual property. If not, then creators of IP would enjoy fewer rights and protections, an inherently inequitable position that, in fact, does LESS to compel the creation of IP, not more.

I also never suggested that creators of IP should have control over everyone else, only the IP they create. I have no problem with you controlling that IP which you create Roze. None whatever.

Perhaps you have a problem with those who create material objects having an inherent creators control over those tangible objects. If you do, then your line of reasoning is consistent and then you seem to be saying that no one should exert control over anything they create, ever, at all, in any medium. This position is odd, indeed.

Perhaps you have a problem with an equitable situation existing for all creators regardless of their medium.

Perhaps, too, you just have a problem reading and comprehending.
United Hackers Association

so why not forever
and lets do same for patents

what holly wood is and these greedy bastards are is a copyright troll
YES COPYRIGHT TROLL just as there are patent trolls …..
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

@Unreasoned Mind
“I also never suggested special privileges be afforded creators of IP, rather I am saying that the same creators rights exercised by the carpenter or the real estate developer should also be afforded a creator of intellectual property.”

WRONG. If a real estate developer sells a house to someone else, then there is nothing in the law that prohibits the buyer of the house from creating a copy (meaning a perfect replica) of the house whenever he/she wants, and giving these replica houses to other people.
OneOfThePeople

Thanks TF to bring this issue to our attention. Thanks for the comments.

Is democracy dead? How is the opinion and stand of the people on these issues reflected in these laws?

It seems to me that it is the attempt to regain the traditional powerstructure the corporate world (and their executives) is so used to. (old habits die hard)

Don’t get me wrong: I am totally for artist or ppl in general being paid for their work, but I don’t see that a industry is better or even necessary to ensure that. (esp. if the administration is better paid than the creatives)

I recommend watching the Congress-footage of the CCC on a similar matter. It helped me understand how difficult it is to save us from enslaving laws:
ftp://ftp.ccc.de/congress/2008/video_h264_720x576/25c3-2791-en-la_quadrature_du_net_-_campaigning_on_telecoms_package.mp4.torrent
ftp://ftp.ccc.de/congress/2008/video_h264_720x576/25c3-2791-en-la_quadrature_du_net_-_campaigning_on_telecoms_package.mp4

if the link doesn’t show search for:
“25c3-2791-en-la_quadrature_du_net_-_campaigning_on_telecoms_package.mp4″
it also comes as a torrent.

May we all be save …
acid-man

sorry unreasoned mind you are wrong and you are in the wrong place if you think downloading stuff is illegal…
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“Is democracy dead?”
No. There are two resources that I can think of: The Economist has published a democracy index a few months ago detailing how democratic each nation is, and Freedom House also has a democracy index. Although not perfect, I am sure that they are reliable indicators of how democratic each nation is.

For the democracy index from the economist, see:
a330 (dot) g (dot) akamai (dot) net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics (dot) eiu (dot) com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008 (dot) pdf

(Note: replace the all instances of “(dot)” with a “.”)

As you can see, as of 2008, Sweden (9.88) is the most democratic nation on Earth, followed by Norway (9.68), Iceland (9.65), Netherlands (9.53), Denmark (9.52), Finland (9.25), New Zealand (9.19), Switzerland (9.15), Luxembourg (9.10), Australia (9.09), Canada (9.07), Ireland (9.01), Germany (8.82), Austria (8.49), Spain (8.45), Malta (8.39), Japan (8.25), United States (8.22), Czech Republic (8.19), Belgium (8.16), United Kingdom (8.15), Greece (8.13), Uruguay (8.08), France (8.07), Portugal (8.05), Mauritius (8.04), Costa Rica (8.04), South Korea (8.01), and Italy (7.98). The list continues until you get to Syria, Laos, Guinea, Libya, Guinea-Bissau, Saudi Arabia, Central African Republic, Burma, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Chad, and North Korea on the bottom, which are the least democratic.

“May we all be save[d]”
No, let us all save ourselves. Self-reliance! As we are all humans, we all have human potential, no matter how difficult something is. Have you not heard of humanism?
Dingo_RG

Brilliant Death (post 30) said:
“As for attempting to morally justify file-sharing, I don’t bother these days. Illegal downloading has enriched me as a person, if that’s ‘immoral’ then immorality seems to be the way to go.”

———————–

Oh!!! you are something confused, ‘Brilliant Death’. :-)

File-Sharing; as all the forms of SHARING, is completely legal. This doesn’t need any moral justification.

SHARING (independently if this is done of digital way or physical way) is an UNIVERSAL RIGHT, as also the FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION; and any UNIVERSAL RIGHT is ABOVE of any law (including copyright law) and until the moment, NOBODY has been able to demonstrate the opposite (including the useless and outdated RIAA).

This is incredible (for me at least) that SOME people don’t have this basic knowledge.
OneOfThePeople

thanks 10ch for the pdf
(haven’t read it yet)

but the question still stands: “How would such a law reflect the will of the ppl?” as it should in a democracy.

If we’re waiting to be saved we are doomed.

So, be save!
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“How would such a law reflect the will of the ppl?”
Some people may be against it, but many others are for it. As for those who are against such a law, they are usually more apathetic and think that it is not a big deal, so they don’t bother to do anything against it. So, even if it is a majority, people who are against it think that it is not a very important issue, so they ignore it. That is why these things get passed.
Please Insert Coin

“…might prompt them to put things back how they were…”

Hahahahaha, whew, that bit was hilarious!
pirateprideWW

This is one of the classic problems with copyright law – who exactly determines the “correct” time for the ownership of the copyright? There wouldn’t be a chance of special interests getting involved either, would there? And what *is* the correct time? How do we know 49 or 51 years isn’t “right”, instead of 50? What a peculiar concept.
Pingback: overflowlegal.com
Unreasonable Bastard

Reasoned Mind, I like your arguments, you present some pretty reasonable arguments in my mind and I feel I can see how you arrive at those. But here’s where I feel you fail. You consider the ideas of law and rights and rules and good and bad and so on as absolutes, as inherently correct, as righteous priniciples. But I disagree. None of those things mean anything really, they’re little more than fantastic machinations construed and conspired in the minds of men. They don’t actually exist in any true form; they’re all just made up beliefs designed to satisfy selfish interests. It’s bullshit, and it’s my opinion that the truth is reality will never obey your wishes for those things to prove true. It won’t. It doesn’t. There is no natural governing system in existance that specifically define the rules on which you base your arguments. A likely truth is that you have desires that you would like to have satisfied in order to serve self-interest, and that interest likely perceived as being condusive to that of your own survival. You yourself accuse others of self-delusion, but it is my opinion that you also fall foul of such.

I feel I recognize your reasoning, but you just don’t seem willing to extend the logic far enough in order to accept reality, and for that you and your system will absolutely fail for the simple reason that you chose to defy reality in order to support your beliefs, and reality always prevails by the simple fact that it is true.
giz

Remember without the ability to actually record music none of this would exist! Live performance is always a musicians bread and butter anyway. File sharing just means certain people are more aware of artists and their music. This means eventually artists will see direct benefits and bigger fan bases. File sharing has given people more choice than the music industry EVER could. Think of how many musicians there are in the world compared to the amount of space on the shelves at your local music store. I love music the more the better, I could NEVER afford to buy all the music I have downloaded on my computer, not a chance. I would also add that I DJ with VINYL so if I hear something I like on the internet i’ll go out and buy the 12′ so I can go and play it in a club! Again, this would eventually benefit the artist in many ways. I also make music myself and I (as well as many others) have no qualms about distributing music for free which you can go pick up along with (illegal?) DJ mixes @

http://patchwurkdurt.blogspot.com

I also sample tracks and don’t give a fuck about clearance :) so what?

@ Reasoned Mind
you seem like a twat. If I knew you I would probably steal your car for a laugh.
chet

and i thought Hitler lost wwII
rawr

i totally read the title as Music Copyright ‘Penis Extension’ Moves Forward
#46 ;)

@46
hitler did
fascism did not
chet

thats what i meant… but as to help others understand the ideals such as the corporations that are backing this type of bill are not looking out for the individuals but only for the money. they will stake claim always that this is what they intend to do but there is no such motive behind their lie… look at the RIAA they claim to protect the musicians but in fact they are stealing from them just as they claim to protect them… with this sort of protection they dont need any “protection [mob]“
Reasoned Mind

Roze, just to be factually correct, architects and designers always own their designs and license them for one-time use in one specific place for one specific project. You may own the tangible house and sell the house as you see fit. You may not build an exact replica to sell or give away without express permission of the designer. That’s been the case since day one in the architecture field. The house to design relationship is similar to the cd to music relationship, You purchase and own the medium but you license the IP within it. And frankly Roze, this is why we have some degree of pointlessness to our discussions. You literally don’t know or understand enough about the structure of the legal licensing system to debate these issues intelligently on their merits.
Nogard

Big labels are leeches to the artists, giving them crumbs in return. Big labels are leeches to the consumers, giving them crumbs in return. Tell me why shouldn’t we expect the consumer to behave exactly the same way in return.
Stolen Rhone

95 years is totally unjustified.

They are just cutting their own throats with this blatant greed.
Stolen Rhone

18 Feb 14, 2009 at 03:44 by Reasoned Mind

You are utterly delusional if you think that will work for the benefit of anybody in the long run, including the copyright holders.
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“[A]rchitects and designers always own their designs and license them for one-time use in one specific place for one specific project. You may own the tangible house and sell the house as you see fit. You may not build an exact replica to sell or give away without express permission of the designer. That?s been the case since day one in the architecture field. The house to design relationship is similar to the [CD] to music relationship[:] [y]ou purchase and own the medium but you license the IP within it.”

That is incorrect. Firstly, as you provide no evidence that this is the case, there is no evidence that what you have stated is true. Secondly, even if it is true, it has been the case only since the advent of ever restrictive copyright laws. The architecture field, as you may know, has been around since… pretty much when humans have existed. When people build architecture, and sell it to someone else, then the buyer always had the right to build a replica of it, or if what you have stated is correct, at least until these restrictive copyright laws came into place. Sometimes, even if people did not own a house/building, people still copied them for themselves. An example of this is Versailles, which attracted the jealousy of kings and princes all across Europe, even if they hated Louis XIV. Naturally, they wanted their own Versailles, and many built a Versailles for themselves, and, even if they were not exact replicas, were essentially modeled after Versailles.
Reasoned Mind

“even if they were not exact replicas, were essentially modeled after Versailles.”

Roze. An IDEA is not copyrightable. An exact replica is. Evidence of the factual nature of my post abounds online, just Google AIA documents and read the licensing agreements. Every word of my post was precisely accurate and you are just sadly out of your depth at this point.

I remember some weeks ago another poster said to you “Roze, get your tits out.” At the time I thought it was a bit dumb, and rather classless. Now, watching you week by week lower the standards here and utterly humiliate yourself in the deep end of an intellectual discussion you truly know nothing about, I’m finally realizing the cogency of that request.

Roze? Get your tits out.

Clearly it’s the best thing of value you have to offer here. More and more it appears the only thing.
Spade

Some of the arguments here are trying to treat digital “property” as though it were analogous to physical property. It’s not. Computer files can be copied with essentially zero effort, whereas it takes a lot of time and effort to make copies of something physical.

The copyright czars are attempting to treat digital items the same as physical items, ignoring the fact that the scarcity of material matter doesn’t apply to the digital realm.

I’ve predicted that there will be rioting, violence and bloodshed over this stuff sooner or later. Whether it will come soon enough to make a difference, I don’t know.
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“An IDEA is not copyrightable. An exact replica is.”
So, now, speaking exactly of exact replicas, you still have not provided evidence that this is the case.

To build a replica of the white house on one’s own land, for example, has never been illegal.
Reasoned Mind

The design of the White House is in the public domain, Roze.

The evidence you seek is in every AIA contract.

And words cannot express how grateful I am that you actually lobby here for the other side.

LOL
http://www.10ch.org/ www.10ch.org

“The design of the White House is in the public domain”

Interesting. Public Domain. Then, this “public domain” directly contradicts the idea (that you have touted) that as you have stated earlier, “[y]ou may own the tangible house and sell the house as you see fit. You may not build an exact replica to sell or give away without express permission of the designer” at any time. Perhaps you may object to the idea of public domain itself. After all, it is most likely that you do favor the indefinite extension of copyright laws.

“The evidence you seek is in every AIA contract.”

AIA stands for the American Institute of Architects. There are two problems with the evidence you cite: firstly, that it is American rather than global, and secondly, that the AIA has not existed from (as you have stated earlier), “day one in the architecture field.” You have stated that such restrictive measures have existed since day one in the architecture field, which you have provided no evidence for. I contend that, instead, it has only existed since ever restrictive copyright laws, if ever, which is most likely more correct.

For example, please cite a law that stated that it was illegal to build a replica of the Parthenon in the times of Ancient Greece. I am sure there was none.
Dingo_RG

‘Reasoned Mind’ (post 49) said:

“You may not build an exact replica to give away without express permission of the designer.”

————————————-

@’Reasoned Mind’;

Well; I don’t have the time for useless discussions, but this statement that you said, is so UTTERLY WRONG, that I can’t let pass it.

Tell me on what basis you say this bullshit. There doesn’t exist any law for punishing to any person for sharing any goods, and also there doesn’t exist any reason for giving a different treatment to movies or music, and also is a BIG LIE that is necessary the ‘express permission’ of the owner of the creation of a good which I already bought and want to share.

SHARING is an UNIVERSAL RIGHT, and NOT a privilege.

My main profession is designer, but not in architecture. I am designer in electronics; mainly, audio equipment. Also, I have a secondary work as computer technician.

I have registered many of my electronic designs. This is a standard process that any person who creates something can do; with a lawyer, and the same rules apply for any creation, independently if this is music, electronics, architecture, etc.

These rules are very explicit:
According to the laws of intellectual property, which protect (in theory) the creations of the inventors or artists; I have the right and can sue to that person who does an exact replica of a product that is of my creation, but ONLY, and ONLY, if there exists a monetary gain in the DIRECT PROCESS of the specific action (in this case, copying).

In a few words, if any person does a copy (exact replica) of a product of my creation, and this person sells it, then, I can sue to this person. However, if this person does an exact replica for giving away to an friend, brother, father, etc. there doesn’t exist violation of the law, and the process is completely legal, because there didn’t exist a commercial operation involved.

I will illustrate this with a situation more detailed:
Robert (a hypothetical personage) buys me a ‘guitar amplifier’ designed and created by my person. Now Robert owns a guitar amplifier of my creation, and Robert as new owner can do with the amplifier that he wants (including copying). However the only exception is if Robert does exact replicas of the amplifier and he sells these copies to other persons.

Now, if Robert does exact replicas of this amplifier for giving away to other persons, then, I can’t do nothing on the matter; because not monetary gain has been involved in the operation. Even if Robert distributed 50 exact copies I can’t do nothing again; because not monetary gain has been involved in the process.

Now, if I discover that Robert sold AT LEAST one of these copies, then, I can sue him; but ONLY for the one amplifier that he sold, and not for the others 49 that he distributed free.

This is the same for any work protected for these laws, and there doesn’t exist any reason for giving a different treatment to movies or music.

That for me is very impressive, is as some people don’t have is clear yet.
Reasoned Mind

“For example, please cite a law that stated that it was illegal to build a replica of the Parthenon in the times of Ancient Greece. I am sure there was none.”

Way to go, Roze. Could be true. I hear speed limits, environmental guidelines, divorce law, performing rights, public dress codes, octane ratings and gun regulations were different then, too. :-)
Reasoned Mind

Dingo, not only do you have the facts about modern day licencing wrong, i.e. architecture agreements that require NO monetary gain to be infringing, but you don’t even know what the law says about music.

I hope your tits are better than Roze’s.

“To save the expense” Illegal file bartering has been held to be a commercial use, cutting off the defense of fair use in the U.S.: “…[C]ommercial use is demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauhorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.” A&M Records, Inc. et al v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), at 1014.
Dingo_RG

@’Reasoned Mind’;

Well; for your information, I have more than 10 years of experience in my area, and I know very well where the law the intellectual property protects me and where not; and will not be an IMBECILE and IGNORANT as you, that tell me the opposite.

As I already said, there doesn’t exist any reason for giving to movies or music a different treatment; and NOBODY has been able to prove that.

A question; Can you prove really that file-sharing is illegal? Obviously NOT, and even the moment NOBODY has been able to prove it, as also, NOBODY has been able to prove that profit or loss can be derived from the action of SHARING, as such, all the claims about millions of losses that the RIAA claims are without evidence, only BULLSHIT.
Michael Holloway

If you want to resist this copyright term extension then sign the petition for Sound Copyright at
http://soundcopyright.eu/petition

We’ll keep in touch with petitioners and suggest actions you can take.
Now if only…

NubCakes = Another corporate shill at the capitalist gangbang.

Reasoned Mind = Spineless soul less sucker of satans c__k!

Keep loving your copywrong fools, we’ll watch you burn on the fire with the other corporate whores.
sUN kING

“rather I am saying that the same creators rights exercised by the carpenter or the real estate developer should also be afforded a creator of intellectual property.”

Really? I wasn’t aware carpenters or real estate developers had rights to their works for 95 years. So, why should musicians ALONE get this perk. Shouldn’t ALL CREATORS get to own their work for 95 years? WHY JUST MUCISIANS?
Pingback: 3 Count: Jailbreaking The Pirate Bay | PlagiarismToday
Reasoned Mind

@SunKing.

Carpenter’s, real estate, anything created in the material world has no rights limit. None. Not ever. That’s how houses and land an all kinds of property can be passed down from family to heir for hundreds and hundreds of years. All digital artists are lobbying for is a very reasonable 95.

Now put down the bong and go sit with Dingo. You’ve both had enough.
Pingback: Texas Music Scene » The Daily Chord - Monday, February 16

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Music Copyright ‘Pension Extension’ Moves Forward

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed