On Jul 18, 7:44 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the > > 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after > > all). > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm > > > Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties > > for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European > > Union plan. > > > Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 > > years. > > > Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among > > those who have campaigned for it to be extended. > > > The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last > > for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to > > give approval. > > > Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go > > out of copyright in the coming years. > > > That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get > > paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by > > any record label. > > > Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next > > year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public > > domain in 2013. > > > Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending > > the copyright. > > > But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of > > lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be > > in greater need of an income during their retirement. > > > The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market > > Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. > > > "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when > > they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s > > would lose protection," his scheme said. > > ................................................... > > I would like to think that ownership of my house will extend at least as > long as I and those who inherit it live. A song is private property. Mao > wrote that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Should > ownership rights also belong to those who can wrest them? > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF==AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF I beg to disagree. By a similar though extended argument we should be paying Mozarts relatives and Beethovens for their work used daily in TV ads and radio world-wide. When the rich get richer they want to change the rules in their favour. I am all for protecting copyright, but it should like everything else have a reasonable shelf-life. Twenty years is enough and should be the same as a patent. K.
Song Copyrights and Patents
Started by ●July 17, 2008
Reply by ●July 17, 20082008-07-17
Reply by ●July 17, 20082008-07-17
On Jul 18, 7:44 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the > > 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after > > all). > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm > > > Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties > > for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European > > Union plan. > > > Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 > > years. > > > Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among > > those who have campaigned for it to be extended. > > > The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last > > for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to > > give approval. > > > Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go > > out of copyright in the coming years. > > > That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get > > paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by > > any record label. > > > Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next > > year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public > > domain in 2013. > > > Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending > > the copyright. > > > But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of > > lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be > > in greater need of an income during their retirement. > > > The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market > > Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. > > > "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when > > they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s > > would lose protection," his scheme said. > > ................................................... > > I would like to think that ownership of my house will extend at least as > long as I and those who inherit it live. A song is private property. Mao > wrote that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Should > ownership rights also belong to those who can wrest them? > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > �����������������������������������������������������������������������I beg to disagree. By a similar though extended argument we should be paying Mozarts relatives and Beethovens for their work used daily in TV ads and radio world-wide. When the rich get richer they want to change the rules in their favour. I am all for protecting copyright, but it should like everything else have a reasonable shelf-life. Twenty years is enough and should be the same as a patent. K.
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
clay@claysturner.com wrote:
:On Jul 17, 3:22�pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
:>
:> Well blow me down with a feather! The poor wee souls have no money to
:> rake in in their 70s! What about Engineers and Scientists who make
:> real contributions to society.
:>
:
:Have you not created something worth protecting? If you don't believe
:that people should be able to protect their creations and that they
:should be freely available, then you don't have to protect your own.
:Feel free to give away anything you create.
:
So why can't I get a patent that's good for a century or so?
What about software copyrights?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Fred J. McCall wrote:> clay@claysturner.com wrote: > > :On Jul 17, 3:22 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > :> > :> Well blow me down with a feather! The poor wee souls have no money to > :> rake in in their 70s! What about Engineers and Scientists who make > :> real contributions to society. > :> > : > :Have you not created something worth protecting? If you don't believe > :that people should be able to protect their creations and that they > :should be freely available, then you don't have to protect your own. > :Feel free to give away anything you create. > : > > So why can't I get a patent that's good for a century or so?That a patent confers a time-limited monopoly is a matter of public policy; giving an inventor enough time to profit from his work to encourage him to go forward, while expropriating it for the public good after a time to allow technologies to bootstrap on earlier work. In other words, an inventor is required to (after a time) donate his invention for the greater good. How does allowing anyone to sing a song without royalties advance the greater good?> What about software copyrights?Most shouldn't be allowed in the first place, but that's another matter. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> On Jul 18, 7:44 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >> kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >>> Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the >>> 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after >>> all). >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm >>> Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties >>> for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European >>> Union plan. >>> Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 >>> years. >>> Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among >>> those who have campaigned for it to be extended. >>> The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last >>> for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to >>> give approval. >>> Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go >>> out of copyright in the coming years. >>> That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get >>> paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by >>> any record label. >>> Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next >>> year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public >>> domain in 2013. >>> Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending >>> the copyright. >>> But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of >>> lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be >>> in greater need of an income during their retirement. >>> The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market >>> Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. >>> "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when >>> they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s >>> would lose protection," his scheme said. >>> ................................................... >> I would like to think that ownership of my house will extend at least as >> long as I and those who inherit it live. A song is private property. Mao >> wrote that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Should >> ownership rights also belong to those who can wrest them? >> >> Jerry >> -- >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >> ����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > I beg to disagree. By a similar though extended argument we should be > paying Mozarts relatives and Beethovens for their work used daily in > TV ads and radio world-wide. When the rich get richer they want to > change the rules in their favour. I am all for protecting copyright, > but it should like everything else have a reasonable shelf-life. > Twenty years is enough and should be the same as a patent.I agree that copyright should eventually expire, but certainly not during the owner's lifetime and probably not during his/her spouse's. To do otherwise is like assessing death duties while the owner is still alive. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Eric Jacobsen wrote:> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT), kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the >> 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after >> all). >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm >> >> >> Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties >> for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European >> Union plan. >> >> Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 >> years. >> >> Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among >> those who have campaigned for it to be extended. >> >> The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last >> for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to >> give approval. >> >> Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go >> out of copyright in the coming years. >> >> That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get >> paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by >> any record label. >> >> Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next >> year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public >> domain in 2013. >> >> Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending >> the copyright. >> >> But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of >> lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be >> in greater need of an income during their retirement. >> >> The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market >> Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. >> >> "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when >> they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s >> would lose protection," his scheme said. >> ................................................... >> >> >> >> Well blow me down with a feather! The poor wee souls have no money to >> rake in in their 70s! What about Engineers and Scientists who make >> real contributions to society. >> >> >> K. > > I'll disagree with the previous posters and agree with your sentiment. > When patent protection and policies were first developed it was > recognized that ownership of Intellectual Property should not last > forever, i.e., there should be an expiration date at which time the > property became public domain. There are very good reasons for > this, and this policy continues in patent law in the US and globally. > > Generally the laws have recognize that there should be sufficient time > for the creator of the property to reap exclusive benefits in order to > provide good motivation (and reward) for IP creation. If there is no > transfer mechanism to the public domain then the public and society at > large gets locked out and (in the case of technology) further > evolution of the industry/arts are impeded by restricted access to the > property. It's a balance, and the arguments are that the balance > should be tilted more to the favor of the creators than it has been > historically. > > The same is true generally of copyrights, and the current schemes have > done well for many, many years. Only recently, when wealthy and > influential copyright holders wanted to extend their ownership (past > what everyone else had been living with for ages) has the system been > challenged to extend the duration of the ownership. A big case in > point in the US was Disney, who got congress to extend copyright terms > so that they could maintain exclusive ownership of Mickey and Goofy et > al. > > There's a tradeoff between exclusive rights and public rights, and the > historically proven-out method has been to grant exclusive rights to > the creator for a period of time. It is not surprising that as > certain creators have gotten wealthy and a lot of money is at stake > for them, that they'll argue that the tradeoff should be tilted more > in their favor. > > It may turn out that way, but it means the balance may be getting out > of whack. If the same thing happens to patents none of us will be > able to build anything without paying a ton of royalties to people who > developed technology fifty years ago. > > And I don't see a big separation in this case between the development > of technology and copyrighted arts. Arts build on what's gone on > before, just like technology. Restricting access to the foundations > means fewer buildings get built.Eric, We're not barking up the same tree. I agree that copyrights owned by third parties should expire, and probably sooner than they do now. My belief that copyrights *owned by the creator* should last the lifetime of the creator and perhaps his spouse. It might even be a good idea to have the ownership of copyrights revert to the originator after the third party's interest expires. Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster might not have died impoverished if that were the cans. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
On Jul 18, 4:24 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> Eric Jacobsen wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT), kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > >> Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the > >> 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after > >> all). > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm > > >> Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties > >> for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European > >> Union plan. > > >> Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 > >> years. > > >> Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among > >> those who have campaigned for it to be extended. > > >> The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last > >> for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to > >> give approval. > > >> Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go > >> out of copyright in the coming years. > > >> That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get > >> paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by > >> any record label. > > >> Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next > >> year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public > >> domain in 2013. > > >> Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending > >> the copyright. > > >> But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of > >> lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be > >> in greater need of an income during their retirement. > > >> The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market > >> Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. > > >> "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when > >> they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s > >> would lose protection," his scheme said. > >> ................................................... > > >> Well blow me down with a feather! The poor wee souls have no money to > >> rake in in their 70s! What about Engineers and Scientists who make > >> real contributions to society. > > >> K. > > > I'll disagree with the previous posters and agree with your sentiment. > > When patent protection and policies were first developed it was > > recognized that ownership of Intellectual Property should not last > > forever, i.e., there should be an expiration date at which time the > > property became public domain. There are very good reasons for > > this, and this policy continues in patent law in the US and globally. > > > Generally the laws have recognize that there should be sufficient time > > for the creator of the property to reap exclusive benefits in order to > > provide good motivation (and reward) for IP creation. If there is no > > transfer mechanism to the public domain then the public and society at > > large gets locked out and (in the case of technology) further > > evolution of the industry/arts are impeded by restricted access to the > > property. It's a balance, and the arguments are that the balance > > should be tilted more to the favor of the creators than it has been > > historically. > > > The same is true generally of copyrights, and the current schemes have > > done well for many, many years. Only recently, when wealthy and > > influential copyright holders wanted to extend their ownership (past > > what everyone else had been living with for ages) has the system been > > challenged to extend the duration of the ownership. A big case in > > point in the US was Disney, who got congress to extend copyright terms > > so that they could maintain exclusive ownership of Mickey and Goofy et > > al. > > > There's a tradeoff between exclusive rights and public rights, and the > > historically proven-out method has been to grant exclusive rights to > > the creator for a period of time. It is not surprising that as > > certain creators have gotten wealthy and a lot of money is at stake > > for them, that they'll argue that the tradeoff should be tilted more > > in their favor. > > > It may turn out that way, but it means the balance may be getting out > > of whack. If the same thing happens to patents none of us will be > > able to build anything without paying a ton of royalties to people who > > developed technology fifty years ago. > > > And I don't see a big separation in this case between the development > > of technology and copyrighted arts. Arts build on what's gone on > > before, just like technology. Restricting access to the foundations > > means fewer buildings get built. > > Eric, > > We're not barking up the same tree. I agree that copyrights owned by > third parties should expire, and probably sooner than they do now. My > belief that copyrights *owned by the creator* should last the lifetime > of the creator and perhaps his spouse. It might even be a good idea to > have the ownership of copyrights revert to the originator after the > third party's interest expires. Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster might not > have died impoverished if that were the cans. > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > �����������������������������������������������������������������������Nevr mind the musically inept,,,what about Mozart and even Schubert? K.
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> clay@claysturner.com wrote:
:>
:> :On Jul 17, 3:22 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Well blow me down with a feather! The poor wee souls have no money to
:> :> rake in in their 70s! What about Engineers and Scientists who make
:> :> real contributions to society.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Have you not created something worth protecting? If you don't believe
:> :that people should be able to protect their creations and that they
:> :should be freely available, then you don't have to protect your own.
:> :Feel free to give away anything you create.
:> :
:>
:> So why can't I get a patent that's good for a century or so?
:
:That a patent confers a time-limited monopoly is a matter of public
:policy;
:
As are copyrights and such. Sauce for the goose and all that.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: :kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote: :> On Jul 18, 7:44 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: :>> kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: :>>> Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the :>>> 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after :>>> all). :>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm :>>> Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties :>>> for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European :>>> Union plan. :>>> Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 :>>> years. :>>> Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among :>>> those who have campaigned for it to be extended. :>>> The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last :>>> for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to :>>> give approval. :>>> Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go :>>> out of copyright in the coming years. :>>> That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get :>>> paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by :>>> any record label. :>>> Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next :>>> year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public :>>> domain in 2013. :>>> Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending :>>> the copyright. :>>> But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of :>>> lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be :>>> in greater need of an income during their retirement. :>>> The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market :>>> Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. :>>> "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when :>>> they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s :>>> would lose protection," his scheme said. :>>> ................................................... :>> I would like to think that ownership of my house will extend at least as :>> long as I and those who inherit it live. A song is private property. Mao :>> wrote that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Should :>> ownership rights also belong to those who can wrest them? :>> :>> Jerry :>> -- :>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. :>> ����������������������������������������������������������������������� :> :> I beg to disagree. By a similar though extended argument we should be :> paying Mozarts relatives and Beethovens for their work used daily in :> TV ads and radio world-wide. When the rich get richer they want to :> change the rules in their favour. I am all for protecting copyright, :> but it should like everything else have a reasonable shelf-life. :> Twenty years is enough and should be the same as a patent. : :I agree that copyright should eventually expire, but certainly not :during the owner's lifetime and probably not during his/her spouse's. To :do otherwise is like assessing death duties while the owner is still alive. : And the same could be said of any patentable invention. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Jerry Avins wrote:> kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >> On Jul 18, 7:44 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >>>> Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the >>>> 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after >>>> all). >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm >>>> Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties >>>> for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European >>>> Union plan. >>>> Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 >>>> years. >>>> Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among >>>> those who have campaigned for it to be extended. >>>> The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last >>>> for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to >>>> give approval. >>>> Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go >>>> out of copyright in the coming years. >>>> That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get >>>> paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by >>>> any record label. >>>> Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next >>>> year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public >>>> domain in 2013. >>>> Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending >>>> the copyright. >>>> But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of >>>> lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be >>>> in greater need of an income during their retirement. >>>> The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market >>>> Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. >>>> "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when >>>> they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s >>>> would lose protection," his scheme said. >>>> ................................................... >>> I would like to think that ownership of my house will extend at least as >>> long as I and those who inherit it live. A song is private property. Mao >>> wrote that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Should >>> ownership rights also belong to those who can wrest them? >>> >>> Jerry >>> -- >>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >>> ����������������������������������������������������������������������� >> >> I beg to disagree. By a similar though extended argument we should be >> paying Mozarts relatives and Beethovens for their work used daily in >> TV ads and radio world-wide. When the rich get richer they want to >> change the rules in their favour. I am all for protecting copyright, >> but it should like everything else have a reasonable shelf-life. >> Twenty years is enough and should be the same as a patent. > > I agree that copyright should eventually expire, but certainly not > during the owner's lifetime and probably not during his/her spouse's. To > do otherwise is like assessing death duties while the owner is still alive. > > JerryI always saw the lifetime of a patent as an estimate on how long it would take the rest of the community to have the same idea. This may vary strongly, but I think few inventions are ahead in time by more than 10 years. Andre
