Aging rockers set to lose copyrights

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,300
126
CNN

"LONDON, England (Reuters) -- When British finance minister Gordon Brown stands up to make his pre-budget speech next week, aging rockers Cliff Richard, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones might do well to tune in.

Not normally the stuff of rock'n'roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free for all to use."

"Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years."

huh?

whats the diff between the aging rockers who have a 50yr copyright limit and songwriters that have lifetime + 70yrs?
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
I'm not going to cry if Mick Jagger can't buy another yacht or Chubby Checker can't pay off his gambling debt.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: JEDI
CNN

"LONDON, England (Reuters) -- When British finance minister Gordon Brown stands up to make his pre-budget speech next week, aging rockers Cliff Richard, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones might do well to tune in.

Not normally the stuff of rock'n'roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free for all to use."

"Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years."

huh?

whats the diff between the aging rockers who have a 50yr copyright limit and songwriters that have lifetime + 70yrs?

there is a copyright on the music itself, that's life+70, and 50 yrs on the musician's performance of that music.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,300
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: JEDI
CNN

"LONDON, England (Reuters) -- When British finance minister Gordon Brown stands up to make his pre-budget speech next week, aging rockers Cliff Richard, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones might do well to tune in.

Not normally the stuff of rock'n'roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free for all to use."

"Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years."

huh?

whats the diff between the aging rockers who have a 50yr copyright limit and songwriters that have lifetime + 70yrs?

there is a copyright on the music itself, that's life+70, and 50 yrs on the musician's performance of that music.

so how does the public win if there's still life+70 on the copyright?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: JEDI
so how does the public win if there's still life+70 on the copyright?

this would enable any publishing company to pay the songwriter, then sell the recording. possibly cheaper.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
performance vs. writing

the songwriter wrote the song, so they get one rule

the performer recorded the performance of the music, they get another rule

that is what it sounds like to me
 

imported_Devine

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2006
1,293
0
0
I heard this on the radio yesterday, seems kinda stupid for them to lose the copyrights on music they created. How does old classical music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart retain its copyrights?
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,709
11
81
Originally posted by: Devine
I heard this on the radio yesterday, seems kinda stupid for them to lose the copyrights on music they created. How does old classical music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart retain its copyrights?

Uh, it doesn't.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: Devine
I heard this on the radio yesterday, seems kinda stupid for them to lose the copyrights on music they created. How does old classical music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart retain its copyrights?

hahahahhaha

oh man.
 

CptObvious

Platinum Member
Mar 5, 2004
2,500
1
76
Originally posted by: Devine
I heard this on the radio yesterday, seems kinda stupid for them to lose the copyrights on music they created. How does old classical music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart retain its copyrights?
The written music itself is in the public domain, but any recorded performance of the work is copyrighted as a derivative work.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,256
1
0
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Originally posted by: Devine
I heard this on the radio yesterday, seems kinda stupid for them to lose the copyrights on music they created. How does old classical music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart retain its copyrights?
The written music itself is in the public domain, but any recorded performance of the work is copyrighted as a derivative work.
Thank you, Captain Obvious! Oh...er...yeah, :eek:

;)
 

ThaGrandCow

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
7,956
2
0
Originally posted by: Devine
I heard this on the radio yesterday, seems kinda stupid for them to lose the copyrights on music they created. How does old classical music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart retain its copyrights?

Are... are you serious?
The only thing you're paying for in a store is their time to print up classical music and put it in a good binding. You can google any classical music and play it anywhere, or record anything you want using it for free.