Comments on: The UK Says No to Over 50 Year Music Copyright

By: Hotel Break Checker

Hotel Break Checker — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:20:20 +0000

Hotel Break Checker…

Thanks, Interesting read….

By: El Geek Errante · El Geek Errante: transmisión #08

El Geek Errante · El Geek Errante: transmisión #08 — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:15:22 +0000

[...] El parlamento del Reino Unido rechaza la extensión de los derechos de copyright para las productoras – (link) [...]

By: Your hotel Break

Your hotel Break — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:04:03 +0000

Your hotel Break…

Thanks, Interesting read….

By: bangskij

bangskij — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:31:04 +0000

As a muscian, composer, video artist etc. I think the 50 year copyright thingy is a good thing. Longer is bad. I mean, I like to sample stuff, mashup stuff. But those things never leave the safe confines of the studio because of copyright issues. A 50 year limit to copyright increases the amount of material that can be safely sampled every year. The US is worried that I might sample Mickey Mouse and make my own Mickey Mouse movie, and if I wanted to do that I should be allowed. Mickey Mouse is ancient. As the pie-charts show, we the creators should be more worried about signing decent contracts with our publishers and record companies. When a band I was in released an album we made our own record company, I do think this is the way forward. That way we get 100% of everything we make(and also, carry the losses ourselves…). And orginisations like the RIAA should be more concerned about embracing new ways of distribution instead of suing the online community to death. Their loss estimates are way off anyway, what teenager can afford to own 5000 albums? Not many, but somehow the RIAA manage to post all these albums as a “loss” and then go on to complain that lose billions every year. If there was zero piracy they wouldn’t be making all those billions anyway. CD is a scam anyway, when CDs first came they increased the price of an album by 50%(In Norway, an LP cost NOK 100 and a CD cost NOK 150, when people kept buying LPs they finally increased the price of the LPs to NOK 150), and since then they have only gone up. Their excuse was “the increased productions costs”, which if it was ever true, is certainly not true now…

my two cents

By: Hotel Break

Hotel Break — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:32:19 +0000

Hotel Break…

For cheap flights, holidays, city breaks, car rental and hotels…

By: rhxruaouji

rhxruaouji — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:42:00 +0000

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! swqftwtiheuxwq

By: Mouse

Mouse — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:56:05 +0000

Mouse…

yeah thats what I ment, i didnt remember the spelling but i did remember the meaning of the Mouse…

By: datenschmutz.net

datenschmutz.net — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:32:17 +0000

Blogistan Panoptikum Woche 30 2k7…

Nofollow wieder mal im Fokus der Aufmerksamkeit, außerdem: von Tiefenblogs, Contentklau und geistigem Eigentum: also eine ganz normale Sommerwoche in Blogistan.
……

By: Jahruntings

Jahruntings — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:55:13 +0000

If you own your copyright, start your own label. Sign yourself to your company. Run your business! Your business owns the copyright as an assett. You own your business. Talk to a good lawyer if you don’t know how. You make money? You’re a business, like it or not !

Roger – get a good lawyer and own your sh**! If it has value you can always make money. If not, invest smart now! Yessir!!

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:15:34 +0000

Earth to Roger Daltry. A 50 year monopoly wasn’t enough for you?

By: Scott N.

Scott N. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:23:55 +0000

I was shocked to find out that British musicians are still alive 50 years after they started creating music. That doesn’t seem to make sense with the lifestyle.

By: Frank Ditzuleit

Frank Ditzuleit — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:44:30 +0000

That you British Government! You would become a “honorary user” of copywrong.de!

By: Hilary

Hilary — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:34 +0000

“If you have had your song out there for 50 years, wouldn’t you just be sick of your big hit song earning you royalties?”
Er… no, I think I’d be glad of the extra cash.

By: luptonn

luptonn — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:31:09 +0000

I really do have very little sympathy with Richard and Daltrey. When they signed the publishing contracts they agreed to a 50 year exclusive licence and everytime “Summer Holiday” or “My Generation” has been played on the radio they receive a royalty. Now that they are getting to the end of the contract they want to change to rules – tough.

Perhaps the solution to the “pension” problem is for these artists to write some new material and produce, market and publish it on their own without the record company in the middle getting fat off the profits.

By: needlegun

needlegun — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:59:45 +0000

Haha… The greed of record companies has been plain to see for so long, yet artists still sign along the dotted line…

Quote – The Who’s Roger Daltrey was one of the most vocal critics, saying, “Thousands of musicians have no pensions and rely on royalties to support themselves”.

Well Mr Daltrey, you knew about your pension situation, and you knew about the 50 year rule, so if you’d saved a little more of your ‘earnings’ while you were making them, rather than living the high life, then you’d be able to afford a comfortable retirement which is more than I can say for most hard working souls in the UK.

Quote – These people helped to create one of Britain’s most successful industries, poured money into the British economy and enriched people’s lives.

Well so do doctors, nurses, firemen and the like, but you don’t see them jetting around on private planes, buying huge mansions, spending tens of thousands on pure self-indulgence and then bleating about not having quite such a luxurious lifestyle in their old age.

If artists want sympathy, they should act like adults and not like spoiled children who have just been told the sweet shop is now closing.

By: Upanisad

Upanisad — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:53:59 +0000

Those charts are appalling! I mean, artists’ revenue is even less then credit cards companies’ one? And look at record company percentage! How can artists be so damn stupid? :O

By: Tiffany Brooks

Tiffany Brooks — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:33:26 +0000

I just wonder how many of you are songwriters or composers? You speak as if music doesn’t have a much value as other creations such as intellectual property, software, patents, etc. Shouldn’t an artist get to at least own something until the end of their life? Shouldn’t their legacy continue and their loved ones have a chance to own those copyrights? I’m just so sick of the disrespect. It’s not greedy for Sam Walton to leave his business to his family, which is the one of the riches families in the world. No one calls them greedy. Why is a creator of music greedy if they don’t want the Government ordering them to give up their copyrights?

By: Eugene Jen

Eugene Jen — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:19:53 +0000

I wonder any entrepreneur has thought about this: Don’t all VCs behave to entrepreneurs just as record companies do to artists? Well, they have the capital, and we have our tiny piece of idea and get our share of stocks in the whole company after rounds of funding. If we hit big, we get money just like an artist get his one hit or two hit wonder in top 1 and we can go all the way as rock stars? If we tanked, we are just dead like a no name band and VCs just need to write it off from other hits by other artists? VCs have not idea but trends, just like recored companies, no idea about creativity but trends in charts?

By: techguy

techguy — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:13:59 +0000

It’s long been known that artists make their money from touring and not from CD sales. I guess that’s my rationale for never feeling bad about not buying a CD. I don’t mind ripping off the corporation, but the artist I might think twice.

I also agree that if you are making royalties for 50 years and don’t have money left over, then you deserve to starve.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:46:07 +0000

Roger “poured his money back into the economy” (drugs, alcohol, etc.) instead of saving it like “normal” (non-rockstars) do (if they can). The funny thing here is that the record companies complain about “piracy” by customers (or non-customers, whatever) when they’re the ones who’re making out like bandits, contracts or no contracts. If you’re an artist who signed away over 90% of your “earnings”, then why don’t you blame the record company for stealing your “livelihood”? or maybe yourself?

By: LN

LN — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:20:02 +0000

I find it interesting that Roger Daltry is quoted as complaining about musicians not having a pension, whilst still being paid for something he did up to a maximum of 50 years ago. Sounds like a damn fine retirment fund to me…

By: iMarketingGuru (SEO Wiki)

iMarketingGuru (SEO Wiki) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:11:54 +0000

I forgot to add this to here — Why waste your time as an artist wishing to make money from royalties only? If you have had your song out there for 50 years, wouldn’t you just be sick of your big hit song earning you royalties?

I remember coming across this one wired article and I completely forget what it was titled but then I added ideas for monetizing on one’s music outside the boundaries of royalties with ideas added. Feel free to add any other music earning ideas to the wiki article or just let me know in this comment section –> http://wiki.ima...c_Marketing_2.0

By: QAZ

QAZ — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:16:39 +0000

Three cheers for common sense. If an artist is still making money on a song 50 years after it was written, chances are they’ve been earning from it enough over the last 50 years for it not to make too much of a difference to them. Perhaps the artists ought to be more concerned with not getting shafted by the record companies than with copyright running out after 50 years.

Besides, there’s a good 24 years left for Sir Cliff to capitalise on “Wired For Sound” before the copyright runs out. Hurry! To the Cliffmobile, away!

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:11:10 +0000

So it’s not lifetime? In other countries you retain lifetime ownership of your songs.

By: iMarketingGuru (SEO Wiki)

iMarketingGuru (SEO Wiki) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:07:45 +0000

these artists need to make money in other ways. I understand the issue of royalties and such, but why would the government step into to fix rules that have been the same for so long? These artists are far too greedy and likely most of their music can be downloaded for free on the P2P networks anyways. I think artists should be able to monetize on their talent forever, but why only their “products” after 50 years? These should be added to the public domain and used in mash-ups, 50 years is a looong time…