Alienware 17 R4 2017 review
A little dated news but some in the industry are not best pleased about this. I would have thought fifty years is quite enough myself and, if his comments are indeed true, I would have to agree with 'Wily Ferret's' stated reasons as well. click here Is fifty years of music copyright enough? TC.
I think I'm of the view that copyright should die with the holder of that copyright.
What if the holder is a big company? The holder is not always the creator.
The composer's copyright extends 70 years after their death.
What we're talking about here is the artist's copyright, which only lasts 50 years, which is plenty long enough.
The people complaining most about this "Sir" cliff & Roger Daltrey have plenty enough cash, and in any case, if they're so worried about their pensions why didn't they invest in one when the money was rolling in instead of wasting it.
I may be wrong but I think we are talking about two different things here.
Coypright and Royalties.
As an ex Jazz musician (I used to play clarinet in a Jazzband a long time ago) I play lots of jazz music that has long passed the copyright but I still get royalties for every play.
The only Copyrights I have are on photographs, which, if they are published, I get paid. If, after 50 years those photo's can be published without payment, then so be it. I still have plenty of other recent photo's that I am still getting paid for.
A royalty is a payment made to the copyright holder (or holders) of an original work. If you record a piece of music you, and the producers and publishers of the recording are joint copyright holders in the recording - even though the copyright in the actual music may have expired long ago.
The creator or creators of any 'original work' automatically own copyright in that work, whether it be a book, a film, a painting, a magazine article, or a musical recording, unless or until they assign ownership of the copyright to someone else.
"copyright should die with the holder of that copyright"
What if you died a week after writing a masterpiece of a book - are you saying that you shouldn't be able leave the copyright royalties to someone in your will?
What if you were a very successful composer, would you give up composing when you reached old age, on the basis that it wouldn't be worth the effort to write that symphony if it would simply pass into the public domain in a few years?
My view is that copyright is an asset, just like a house, a heap of money, or a valuable antique; it should be treated as such by the law, and be capable of being passed to someone on the death of its creator.
Property is a fine point of law. When I was teaching, I once placed a footnote on a document I had created as a guide / handout for students.
This was tongue in cheek really, as the I was well aware that the my employers had control of all that I devised (in the contract of employment)
They didn't think the footnote at all funny, and asked if I would like to contest the matter in court.
I started my own business shortly thereafter
If those with millions bleat, then greed, avarice and alturism now rule the world, and maybe this retirement thing has something going for it?
If "Sir" Cliff et al have made "plenty enough cash (sic)" from their music it's because...er... they made it. They got off their butts and actually... made the music.
Not like all the people who now want to have it for free and ... er... make their own cash out of someone else's hard work.
Try this: work hard, save up enough money for a nice extension to your house... and then invite any passers-by to take up residence and maybe use your extension as a B&B.
Your point is an interesting one, but 'those with millions', or at least the two mentioned here, came by their millions by their own endeavours - hard work, coupled with talent - and I imagine that focuses the mind to a degree.
If you create something unique, and other people want a copy of it, the law says that you have the automatic right to ask that they pay, and as a copyright holder myself I agree. You probably agree, too, as do most people with any commonsense.
The debate often centres around the manner or amount of the payment, and that's fine - it's something that has to be thrashed out between copyright holders and the people who want the product. So far, so good, copyright holders and consumers can co-exist quite happily - albeit with the occasional blip in the realationship when little things like the internet come along.
The real worm in the apple, so to speak, is this matter of the copyright term, and on this I'm inclined to agree with the government - 50 years in the case of sound recordings is long enough. It's time we were all allowed to play 'Move it' at full volume on the occasion of the Midsomer village fete's evening disco without having to pay a royalty to Sir Cliff. He should be glad that anyone still wants to play it at all.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.