Brits Calls For Copyright Increase

[Benji]

Kaiser Chiefs and U2 back copyright campaign

PJ Harvey, The Who and The Clash also lend their support

Kaiser Chiefs,U2 and Maximo Park are among 4,000 bands who have taken out a full page newspaper advert demanding "Fair play for musicians" today (December 7).

The musicians are calling for an extension of British copyright law on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years, to bring it into line with American provisions.

Performers including PJ Harvey, The Who's Pete Townshend, former Beatles member Paul McCartney, The Clash's Paul Simonon have all signed the advert which appears in the Financial Times.

The advert states: "We call upon the UK Government to support the extension of copyright in sound recordings."

The ad follows the publications of the Government-commissioned Gowers Report which recommended the protection should not be extended.

As previously reported, The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has campaigned for the UK to be brought into line with the US, which has a 95-year limit.

According to the Financial Times, the Government has accepted all the recommendations of the report which found the UK's IP regime "fundamentally strong"

I know people like to protect their assets, but why do they give a shit about copyrights like this? 50 years is more than long enough and for some reason I just feel like I've become privvy to knowing who cares about protecting their old great music over making great new music. I'll probably get some flak for saying that, but I just find it pathetic.

[stokeriño]

They said in one of the BBC articles "people could still be depending on the royalties for these 50 year old songs to live". It makes me think that they damn well should have done something else worthwhile in the last 50 years, or perhaps got a proper job at some point.

[gunnar hendershow]

I think it should be your property and until you die personally. If you get what I'm saying. Nobody inherits the copyright from you, anything that was exclusively your intellectual creation then becomes fair game of sorts.

[Skummy]

I don't think it's "sad" at all. If you made it, you damn sure want to be making some of the money off it. There was an interview on the radio with Vera Lynn about this, where she basically said that when you're an artist of her stature, no one's interested in what they're doing now, they want to buy the old classics, but she's not making money off them. That's just not fair, in my opinion.

[Iain76er]

How long do songwriters get the copyright for? It's longer. Are people like McCartney & Townshend getting two lots of royalties on their songs. It just seems greedy on their part.

I can see why people like Vera Lynn and Cliff Richard are complaining as they don't write their own songs, but they could release new albums now and tons of deluded pensioners would buy them. I don't believe people are only interested in their older music. My mum buys every new Cliff release.

[Cactus Drags]

Why does everything have to be brought into line with American standards?

[Evil Chase K]

Because America > * obviously.

[Guest muddatrucker]

Its theres, let them have it until they die, then give it to their families, I don't get the big deal, if you'd written a one hit wonder - that was massive and then suddenly one day you had no protection over it, you'd complain.

The fact that this even bothers you - since it effects you in no way, is whats actually pathetic.

[Farmer Reil]

Mudda wins. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Benji]

Its theres, let them have it until they die, then give it to their families, I don't get the big deal, if you'd written a one hit wonder - that was massive and then suddenly one day you had no protection over it, you'd complain.

The fact that this even bothers you - since it effects you in no way, is whats actually pathetic.

Honestly? No I wouldn't, in my view music is about music, not money. If I made music, and I could make a living off of it, it's what I'd do, but I wouldn't expect in 50 years, to still be living off one four minute piece of sound. I can understand people with one hit wonders being pissed, but that's life. It's these people, these MILLIONAIRE musicians, wanting extra cash, that pisses me off. Although the idea of 'yours until you die' is fair by me.

I love music, I feel these people have somewhat betrayed a beautiful art for their own greed, you call it pathetic, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Guest muddatrucker]

These musicians wanting extra cash? how is it extra cash? its their money, their work, their sound, imagine if instead of their songs it was stuff like possessions, you've got a house and then 50 years down the line the government take it from you and start charging you rent? its yours why should it have an expiry date?

I hate all this 'its about the music' crap too, it their jobs, let them get paid for what they've done, I'm amazed that the topic has even been brought up, because its much more fair for someone else to get those royalties who had far less to do with the track, isn't it? I'm not sure you truely understand though because aslong as the records are getting bought and played they're costing money, money that has to go to someone and you seem to think that its wrong that the people responsible are getting it, who should we give it to? the record companies (they don't make enough money do they?).

Are people like McCartney & Townshend getting two lots of royalties on their songs. It just seems greedy on their part.

Edited December 8, 2006 by muddatrucker

[Iain76er]

These musicians wanting extra cash? how is it extra cash? its their money, their work, their sound, imagine if instead of their songs it was stuff like possessions, you've got a house and then 50 years down the line the government take it from you and start charging you rent? its yours why should it have an expiry date?

I hate all this 'its about the music' crap too, it their jobs, let them get paid for what they've done, I'm amazed that the topic has even been brought up, because its much more fair for someone else to get those royalties who had far less to do with the track, isn't it? I'm not sure you truely understand though because aslong as the records are getting bought and played they're costing money, money that has to go to someone and you seem to think that its wrong that the people responsible are getting it, who should we give it to? the record companies (they don't make enough money do they?).

Are people like McCartney & Townshend getting two lots of royalties on their songs. It just seems greedy on their part.

So they've been pretty much responsible for the whole track, how is it greedy to claim for all of their work? its like working a 10 hour shift and only getting paid for 5.

EDIT: 4,000 bands have signed it, add all the american musicians that already have this protection and support it, it would seem you've been pretty betrayed, oh dear.

[Summers]

I completely agree with mudda. Why shouldn't they have it?

[Guest muddatrucker]

Exactly, I just can't see the other side of the argument. Not every musician is a millionaire either, and even if they are, its still their money to claim. I'd even doubt that theres many song copyrights that make many musicians '10s of millions for years'.

[Summers]

It's like someone saying "Okay, Mr. Gates, we know Microsoft invented Windows & all, but you no longer own it, sorry."

[TheCrippler]

I completely agree with Mudda on this too, and I don't understand anybody who doesn't. Yes, music is an art form, but it doesn't mean it isn't also a job for these people. Not every musician in the world is a gazzilionaire y'know. These people have spent countless hours writing, rehearsing, recording, playing and promoting this stuff, why shouldn't they own it forever? Never mind 50 years or even 95 years.

As a musician myself, I know that if I wrote a hit song I'd still want to be collecting the cheques 50 years from now, 95 years from now and basically untill I die. Even when I die I'd want that intelectual property right to be passed down to my kids, and for them to pass it down to there kids.

And nobody has 'betrayed a beautiful art for there own greed' the song still exists, it was still written, you can still listen to it and appreciate it. If anybody is gonna make moeny from it, why shouldn't it be the guy who wrote and popularised it? Why should it be anybody else?

Edited December 8, 2006 by TheCrippler

[Chasing Lamely]

Why does everything have to be brought into line with American standards?

[METALMAN]

Even if this is passed, the musicians are only going to get a very small percentage of the money. The vast majority will go to the record labels.

[Gene Kiniski]

Even if this is passed, the musicians are only going to get a very small percentage of the money. The vast majority will go to the record labels.