Copyright extension of 45 years to net just $40 for most performers
Just when I think the freedom brigade is on a roll, I read nonsense like this from the European Union, as reported in Ars Technica, suggesting that the EU is considering extending copyright terms by 45 years in order to guarantee income for aging artists. US entitlements like Medicare having nothing on this....
Every few years the US extends copyright terms because Disney lobbies the heck out of Congress' weak-kneed legislators to prevent Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. After pilfering the commons for the basis of much of its revenue (Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and even, perhaps, Mickey Mouse), Disney keeps going back to the congressional well to ensure its God-given right to make money on old intellectual property forever and ever.
But that's the US. I would have hoped that the EU would show a bit more common sense. Alas! Its proposal completely fails to solve even the problem it sets out to fix, as Open Rights Group notes:
"The Commission makes much of the challenging financial situation facing aging performers," it says. "While we do not accept that IP law is an appropriate mechanism to deal with this situation, as we will demonstrate in the second section of this submission, it also turns out to be a very inefficient one."
That's because 90 percent of the extra money generated during the extended term will go to music labels. Of the 10 percent that goes directly to artists, eight or nine percent will go to the "top 20 percent of earning performers"--in other words, the most successful groups, which have already made millions.
As with Congress and Disney, the EU's proposed 45-year extension would make the rich richer, and would perhaps put roughly 30 Euros per year in most artists' pockets. It's a terrible idea with limited benefit for its intended beneficiaries, and huge detriment to the public and would-be artists growing up in the shadows of today's artists.
If the EU wants to baby artists, set up a pension plan for them. Coddle them with milque toast in their old age. Do something. Just don't extend copyright terms. That helps few and hurts many.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
However, those of us that own publishing will continue to see royalties.
It's insurance that our kids and our kids kids will will inherit the benefits
Of our hard work. Please, tell me how as an artist how the extention of
Copyright hurts me and others like me.
In my opinion, the term of copyright is currently far too long to be justified. At some point, life must move on and the government-granted monopoly on copyrighted works must come to an end. This does not mean that the artist no longer receives money. It simply means that the artist must continue working to continue being paid -- just like everyone else.
The ideal copyright system would involve a short term (maybe 7 to 10 years) in which all works are copyrighted for free. After this term, in order to maintain the copyright for additional terms, an exponentially-increasing fee would have to be paid. In this way, works with no commercial value can come into the public domain quickly while those that are truly valuable can stay copyrighted for longer. Eventually, the renewal fee would be too high to maintain the copyright for any work and it would go into the public domain.
A weak public domain means a weak future for your children.
Copyright hurts me and others like me.
because the copyright system is supposed to create incentive for others to create works. welfare systems encourage people to stop working. the copyright system is not intended as a welfare system for aging rockstars and multinational publishing conglomerates. if you can make one thing and get paid for the rest of your life that does nothing to promote the useful arts and gives no incentive to improve your self, your art, or the public in general.
copyright welfare stifles innovation. why would i want to risk a lawsuit by writing a book, creating music, or inventing something when every idea is already covered under a never ending copyright or a vague patent? if this continues, the only way anyone will be able to create anything will be to get legal assistance from a giant publisher or intellectual property clearing house to protect you from the other giant publishers and predatory corporations.
copyright is censorship. it gives large companies the power to stifle the creativity and free speech of those that they compete or disagree with. it gives copyright holders the power to silence critics and competitors with frivolous litigation. copyright makes creativity and innovation risky and exposes inventors and creators to legal liability. i shouldn't have to do due diligence before publishing a work or marketing a new invention, but never ending copyright will force us all to do just that.
the system is broken, both in the united states and abroad. too many corporations have invested too much money to allow the copyright and patent system to be salvaged and so it should be avoided at all costs.
we can't fix the system, but we can make it obsolete. consumers should avoid copyrighted works and support openly licensed works instead.
creators, instead of copyright, publish your works under the creative commons license, or, in the case of software, the GPL or a compatible open source license. a lot of work is more important than the money it makes and it needs protection from predatory corporations and greedy lawyers.
F*ck that Sh*t
The point of copyright is not to grant exclusive unending control to the creator. It is to encourage creativity and build a healthy public domain. I see you can't think beyond labels, but you just called Jefferson, Franklin, etc communists.
- by softwaredesignengineer September 9, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
- What's wrong with copyright??? Someone put hard work into something and he rightfully deserves to get paid for it. There are lots of people who print and publish old songs, classics, hymns etc and make money out of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong in paying them or their authorized descendents a royality for using that persons hard work. That's what COPY RIGHT means - the RIGHT to COPY - paying the rightful owner his due.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by The_Decider September 9, 2008 3:29 PM PDT
- LOL, another mental midget.
-
-
- by softwaredesignengineer September 10, 2008 7:26 AM PDT
- LOL, another mental midget
-
-
- by teh_chrizzle September 10, 2008 9:08 AM PDT
- Are you saying that descendents can't inherit anything from their parents? Give every worker his due.
-
-
- by The_Decider September 10, 2008 9:36 AM PDT
- >>>>Copyright is supposed to be a 'limited time' so it can go into the public domain, that is the intent of copyright and patents.
-
-
(11 Comments)>>. if you can make one thing and get paid for the rest of your life that does nothing to promote the useful arts and gives no incentive to improve your self, your art, or the public in general.
This is nothing but communism. Are you saying that descendents can't inherit anything from their parents? Give every worker his due.
Why does it sound like you guys want to live off other people's work for free when they want payment for their work? What if I copy word for word off this blog and publish it on my own and still give credit to the the author? Would CNET be okay with that? Sounds like the true colors of most of these anti-copyright guys are coming out.
Sounds more like communism.
Copyright is supposed to be a 'limited time' so it can go into the public domain, that is the intent of copyright and patents.
Again, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the left wing lunatics were not communists.
Do you really think that if a publisher publishes a poem or story from 1850 that they have to pay anyone royalties? If you are do you are more dumb then your brainless 'communist' remark makes you.
It is Disney and other corporations that are perverting the intent and spirit of IP laws. Copyright is not meant to be an exclusive right for eternity.
>>Copyright is supposed to be a 'limited time' so it can go into the public domain, that is the intent of copyright and patents.
That is your opinion. There are plenty who disagree with you on this.
>>Do you really think that if a publisher publishes a poem or story from 1850 that they have to pay anyone royalties? If you are do you are more dumb then your brainless 'communist' remark makes you.
Absolutely. It's his stuff. NOT YOUR'S! Who in the world are you to make profit by using his world? do you really think you can STEAL his work and take advantage of it? If you are do you are more dumb then your brainless remark makes you.
STEAL STEAL STEAL ... that's all you want to do!
no, the idea that you can do one thing and get paid in perpetuity for it is communist. that is the very definition of a welfare state. in america, you used to have to work hard and be smart to get ahead rather than getting a handout from a corrupt system.
people go to work every day because they only get paid for working. i go to work every day because i get paid to work, i don't collect royalties on work i did in the 90's. that work made me money and i have to do more work to get more money. that means i have to stay current and competitive or i will be out of a job. i do the work and i get paid, if i could just sit around and collect money i wouldn't work, and i wouldn't improve, stay current, or be competitive. i would be complacent and ignorant and surprised as hell when my job was replaced by a robot or someone over seas.
if you pay people to not work they don't work, er go, if you pay people for not creating, they don't create. this is why welfare systems don't work as long term solutions.
Why does it sound like you guys want to live off other people's work for free when they want payment for their work?
because that's all that you copyright types are willing to hear. i didn't say anything about free.
you automatically assume that anti-copyright means everything should be free. then you get stuck on the word free and won't hear anything else. no where in my post did i use the word free.
owning an idea keeps it small. artificial scarcity inflates prices artificially and creates artificial barriers to entry. since you want your due think about this: which would you rather have, 100% of a stagnant (or shrinking) million dollar industry or 10% of a growing billion dollar one? which one will leave a better legacy for your descendants?
markets grow with innovation. markets are created through innovation. competition forces everyone to innovate or get left behind. intellectual property laws stifle innovation and competition. they keep us all worrying about our enemies and not focusing on our work. intellectual protectionism makes new markets expensive to create, keeps existing markets from growing and makes everyone lose out. the innovators lose, the implementers lose, the support staff loses, the advertisers lose, the consumers lose, and governments lose out on tax revenue. the only people benefiting from this protectionism are the big corporations and the lawyers.
if you are so scared of free think about this: which would cost more, researching and developing a competitor to an existing product or service, or making a incremental improvement to it? the incremental improvement costs less to research and less to bring to market, but you can't do that thanks to the current state on intellectual property law.
copyright keeps others from benefiting from your work, but it also keeps you from benefiting from the works of others, so you have to keep re-inventing the wheel and paying lawyers to protect you, when you should be devoting those resources to creating and marketing your product or service.
intellectual property laws keep markets small and force innovators to waste money on protectionism. copyright types are so scared that someone will steal their ideas. i have news for you, unless you are a multibillion dollar conglomerate with a team of lawyers, your ideas are going to get stolen anyway and all you will be able to do about it is cry. with reasonable copyright laws, you could steal your ideas back and take some of your competitors ideas as well.
and before you say "but if anyone has access then the ideas won't be worth anything" ask yourself this: why did redhat spend so much to buy jboss, or sun spend so much to buy mysql? the code is free (GPL), why spend millions on the company? why not let them keep making and giving away their software? because being the inventor has real value that sets you apart from the rest of the market. it's a distinction that others are willing to pay big bucks for.
so, get off the copyright train and let your work and your worth speak for itself instead of hiding behind a corrupt system that will have your work and your worth determined by some corporate legal team.
>>That is your opinion. There are plenty who disagree with you on this.
That is not opinion, that is fact. Go do some reading of what the founding fathers wrote about the intent of copyright. That you call it opinion is more proof of your ignorance.
>>>>Do you really think that if a publisher publishes a poem or story from 1850 that they have to pay anyone royalties? If you are do you are more dumb then your brainless 'communist' remark makes you.
>>Absolutely. It's his stuff. NOT YOUR'S! Who in the world are you to make profit by using his world? do you really think you can STEAL his work and take advantage of it? If you are do you are more dumb then your brainless remark makes you.
You truly are stupid. Somerthing written in 1850 IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! That is by design.
Your remarks show that you have zero understanding of copyright. It is there to encourage creativity, not reward it indefinitely. Its stated goal is to build a healthy public domain.
It is not about free, it is not about greed, it is about advancing mankind.
With people like you, no wonder the US is in decline.