No copyright extension for songs in UK
Posted on 27/11/06 13:54 by Seán Byrne                             
No copyright extension for songs in UK

According to this BBC report, the British Phonographic Industry along with the singer Cliff Richard are close to losing their fight to have the copyright period of sound recordings extended from the present 50 years to 95 years.  This comes after an independent review commissioned by the Treasury recommending that the current term of 50 years is sufficient.  On the other hand, composers and their families retain copyright over musical scores for 70 years after the author's death. 

If the current copyright period stays as it is, this will mean that Cliff's big hit "Move It" will lose its copyright in 2008, followed by the first official recordings of The Beatles in 2013.  As a result, this will be a potential issue for artists who make their living from royalties on recordings approaching 50 years of age.

Despite all the years of music composed between the 1950's and now, in my opinion music from the 1960's to the 1980's seems to be best of the music.  From my experience one is more likely to pop on a CD containing hits of some year of the 80's than they are to pull out a hits CD from any of the past couple of years.

Thanks to GristyMcFisty for letting us know about this news.  Gristy added:  "You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties... been living on that and suddenly they're gone." - then get a real job like everyone else you lazy tosser!

Reactions
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
By DeadMan, Mon 27 Nov 2006 23:44
DeadManIf they want more money make some more music. Anyhow this would mean less money for the big music companies. Sure the artist gets a cut but not a big cut. I'd rather see the record companies lose millions as copyright expires than Cliff make another pound from his old dead songs and The Beatles don't need anymore Pennies from Penny Lane. :P
By Saruman, Tue 28 Nov 2006 13:27
I agree, the artists need to invest their money so that they can be ready once their copyrights expire. Unfortunately, here in the US, artists are protected for their entire life + 70 years after their death, unless it is a corporate copyright, in which case, it is a straight 70 years. BTW, doesn't Micheal Jackson own the copyrights for the entire Beatles' library? WTF does he need that money for? If he'd learn to keep his hands off of other peoples' kids and had he'd invested it instead of spending it on a carnival in his back yard, he'd have plenty of money. loveit
By neo1918, Tue 28 Nov 2006 19:45
Copyright law is meant to encourage innovation, not allow a person/corporation to coast on the earnings of one work forever. If Cliff is worried about his income, he should get out out there and produce some NEW stuff.

Name: Email:



Your comment:

Receive notification on new comments?