UK To Reject Copyright Term Extension For Songs |
| Print | |
|
Monday November 27, 2006
|
|||||
|
So reports the BBC. Comments (2)
Brent
said:
|
|||||
|
Skewed Concept of Copyright This is a particularly interesting quote... ["You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties," he said. "Suddenly they're gone."] Why on Earth should you be allowed to make money on something you made and sold over fifty years ago in the first place? Isn't the general purpose of copyright to encourage the continued creation of useful arts? If I'm allowed to wrench money out of someone for a product I made over half-a-decade ago, that's not encouraging me to continue making art, it's telling me that I can retire after making a few products and then live off of them for the rest of my life. I understand that copyright has its purpose, which is to grant a temporary monopoly on the sale and use of your product so that you're allowed enough of the dangling carrot to keep on making useful art. Emphasis on TEMPORARY: doesn't it then make sense that copyright should extend just a couple of years to begin with instead of lasting your entire life and then some? |
|
a simple young student With all the respect i think that there is a very big difference between the EXTENSION OF COPYRIGHT DURATION in general, and the extension of the duration of Performers royalties on sound recordings. Also as far as creativity is concerned I don't think that there is any problem with creativity in USA, where the duration is almost double than in UK. It is still rules the Music Industry whether we like it or not. "Suddenly they're gone" but some others make money from that. "Suddenty they're gone" but the composer continue making money from performers contribution; in fact from his/her work. Thank you. |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
