This is even affecting sites like Youtube where they have the audio silenced if they violate such stupidity.

Really, this is just going too far with it. A lot of people torrent, no shit. But a good chunk of these people do it as a way of either getting the album sooner and getting it to preview it. I always buy albums that I enjoy as a way to show my support for the band.

Unfortunately, the musicians themselves are regarded no differently than the sheep of society, which instead of making fair gains on their own creations and hard work, are instead putting money in the pockets of big business.

The artist has been starved of money so badly, that they cannot finance legal to fight for their cause, so it is a vicious circle.

I propose to any group who is committed to making a future for themselves in music, to incorporate themselves and register each member as a publisher / partner in the corporation.

Look at it this way, if the shoe were on the other foot, and the artists were able to keep the majority of the money, the media industry would declare an all out war to get their cut.

A simple question for you.
If you could not get paid for your music, would you continue to write music?

If the answer is yes, then it will hardly be the end of music.

If the anser is no, I’d wonder whether you are truly an artist or simply another producer of “filler” music. True art will usually find an outlet regardless of monetary concerns.

It wouldn’t be the end of music at all. Not even close. There will always be tons of music available out there. Really, it’s tough titties if you can’t make it a profitable venture. That’s a reality you need to learn to live with, because the chances of you bending the mass of people to your particular way are unimaginably small.

P.S. You’d do well not to judge your average file-sharer based on comments you happen to read here.

The whole “I don’t pay for music because of the industry” argument really pisses me off as an artist, yeah sure, the fat cats gets a huge chunk of the pie as it is right now, but if no one buys music anymore, it will be the end, we depend on our costumers like any other business.

Personaly my production is mine and there is not way I will ever deal with these parasites.

Because once this “Copyright set to the lifetime of the artist” is enacted the MAFFIA will do a limited release of their experimental longevity treatments to all their artists/slaves.
Can you imagine a 300 years old Lars Ulrich? ;-)
The horror :D

But finally the parasites that form record companies can hopefully shut up and back off.

This plus the reduction of copyright laws could make the world a much better place.

i say we all actually revolt and go to there offices and tear them down.
what are they gonna do arrest 60 million people

Under what law? Is it not true that copyrights limit who can legally duplicate and distribute the content? Downloading is not duplication nor distribution, serving is. Downloading is the server duplicating and distributing the content to the downloader. The downloader cannot know whether the content they are downloading is being distributed legally or not, so how do you suppose a downloader can be held liable for copyright infringement?

If you are truly aware then please show me the law that expicitly states the act of downloading content in Britain as illegal.

In other words, having already been paid by the labels for ownership of the copyrights, this group would see all their copyrights snatched back by law, and all future artists limited to licensing their copyrights to record labels.
They don’t want future artists to be able to make the same deals they made. They want to remove the right of others to sell their copyrights permanently.

They also want a “use it or lose it” clause for all artists, which would force the labels to release not just digital recordings (easy enough) but also physical recordings. The labels would need to keep copies for sale of every single song they hold copyright to or lose the copyright they paid the artists for.
Given that production on demand, plus individual delivery costs more than mass production and store delivery, and physically holding mass produced batches of all CD’s for sale is likely impossible, this is effectively a snatching back of rights for artists with older or less popular songs (Billy Bragg for example).

Further, they want the rights to be paid for performance of a song, whether they own the copyright to the song or not. If they cover someone elses song, they feel that they are entitled to as much payment as the songs author everytime that song is used.
This would double the workload for the PRS which would cause an increase in license fees on its own. However, making double the payments would also double the license fees, or half the amount received by the actual copyright holders.
Any business that needs a license will suffer, radio stations, nightclubs, pubs, restaurants, youth clubs and others.

Finally, they want to take away what little “fair use” exists in the U.K., namely in “critical reviews”.

To grab some media attention they made some statements about how they don’t want to see downloaders facing criminal prosecutions, which they aren’t facing anyway. They are not calling for an end to downloaders being sued in civil cases, just an end to something which is not happening.

This is nothing more than moving the greed away from labels to the artists.