Let's look at an example of a song that is currently copyrighted, but for all intents and purposes should really be considered a folk song: Happy Birthday To You.

There could hardly be a single person in the western world that does not know this song by heart, and has not had this song "performed" by friends or relatives at some point in their life. However, public performance of this work is not permitted without the proper license.

The copyright is owed by Warner. According to this Wikipedia article:

Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it.

There is some dispute about whether the copyright is valid, but that's not the point. The real issue is this:

The company continues to insist that one cannot sing the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties: in 2008, Warner collected about $5000 per day ($2 million per year) in royalties for the song.

Will they let the copyright expire in 2030? Or will they beg for yet another extension to copyright? Obviously Warner is not going to let that $2 million a year go without a damn good fight, and $2 million dollars a year puts a heck of a lot of lawyers in court to argue in favour of the extension.

So once again I will state: the fight for copyright extension and control has nothing to do with the rights of independent artists and everything to do with the greed of media giants as they hold our culture to ransom.

Peace,
Andy.

Well, I for one would have major issues with IP protection in perpetuo. Ideas are what drives a lot of our technology here. With IP in perpetuo this innovative society we have now would stagnate as start up companies die on the vine. As artists we generate ideas constantly, sometimes on the backs of other artists, sometimes not. Companies should thrive on new product-not on what was done, say, 100 years ago. If anyone in my family was in a position to become a musician themselves they would do that without the perma-IP right. Ideas are not things in themselves. So, yeah, it is about money and the idea that ideas are possessions....

I think, generally, that 75-90 years is plenty of time to garner monetary rewards for a certain work-no more. And, possibly, a little less would suffice.

First off: Sorry, can't follow this thread in all its glory as I'm on some sort of tour, internet access isn't always a given (living in Germany sometimes feels like living in electronic stonehenge...)



As you've mentioned the Beatles, I'll only be saying this, from my very own personal experience:
I own their "White Album" (among several others, and yes, I *am* sort of a Beatles fan, just to get that sorted). I've paid 23,99 DM (german marks) for it back then (the sticker is still on it). And it was one of the more expensive albums I bought.
Now, the last time I checked, on Amazon, the "White Album" was like €30.99. All factors taken into account, that's still around double the money (you may argue about a few percentages, but that's completely beyond the point already), if not more. And well, that's a CD. You don't get all the inlay coverage and such.
According to my knowledge, the "White Album" alone (which, for whatever reasons, hasn't even been the most successful album of the Beatles) would've done quite well enough to allow their grandsons and daughters (and probably their grandgrandgrandsons and daughters, whatever you native english folks call them - too lazy to look that up) to still bath in champagne and all that.
So, why would they not even sell it, why would they not sell it for the original price, but why would they sell it for a price that is *WAY* higher than what they've been thinking about back then it was worth?
Did the value raise all of the sudden? Did they fail to get a proper revenue? Does Paul need some cash? Does Ringo?
Don't get me wrong, I can perfectly understand if they want to make the money that was "calculated". But why do they want more (MUCH more) now? What *exactly* is the reason? Personally, I fail to see any reason. Others than greed of course (not necessarily Pauls or Ringos greed, that is)



So WHAT?

Robbie van Leeuwen has only written ONE (just ONE!) sucessful song in all his life.
Why shouldn't he struggle, just as anybody else?
He's been at least fortunate enough to write that one song. Does that make him so special he should be awarded (fwiw, I'm sure he has received some awards from "Venus" already) eternally?
He can struggle all his life. So do almost all songwriters. So do I (I'm not a songwriter, but something such as "Venus" is like a trial and error thing anyway, so any musician could've come up with it).

Seriously, that's a truly bad example. Why would that Robbie dude deserve anything else? He only wrote one song that was accepted by the audience (or by the record industry, hrch hrch...). That certainly shouldn't make him any special. 4 chords and a melody the average listener could follow. Yeah, sure, what an achievment.
I'm fine with him getting paid what he's been paid, but why in the world would he deserve anything else? Apparently he simply wrote no other song worth the public attention. So there.

I seriously don't get it why you take that very dude as an example for whatsoever.

- Sascha

@Sascha

24 DM "back then" (I assume around original release date) is way more than €19 is today.
Yes. The White Album sells for €19 on Amazon, and less.

And who gets to say when someone has earned enough for a product?
This is crazy talk.

And about that one-hit-wonder.
That "Venus" hit obviously STILL popular, covered by many, and commercialized by others.
And you make absolutely no arguments of why the copyright of Venus should expire, other than some jealous never-gonnabe bullshit.

Accusations of jealousy could easily be reversed in this case.

I hope to write a hit song one day, and if that happens I expect to retire on the royalties.



There is no "right" to retire because someone did something good, once. And I don't think you will find many regular, hard working folk - you know, those who have to go to work for their whole life without any chance of getting out early - who would would agree with the concept, either ...

Or should we equate writing an immensely popular song with winning the lottery?

Peace,
Andy.

And I suppose you would make an argument that it should be a permanent copyright. Let's see it.

I still think that 75 years is plenty of time. No need to go less.

Who will be the master subject who will decide how long it will be?

No one has said that. You're attacking a straw man.

The point is very basic here.
If you're making money of something I made, I should get compensated.

The duplication and reproduction process for one, and the scenarios of owner usage that are available, for another.

It's easy to duplicate a song, and reproduce it ('play it'). An object serves its purpose, in its place. You obtain other like objects in the physical realm. But a song can be many places at once, shared in a room, office, or
stadium.The stadium owner, or mother giving an infant a bath, can both 'play'
a song, to benefit one, two or many people, or just for themselves.

Objects, buildings, printed materials, and stationary art, all differ greatly when compared to a song.

So far, all the proposed legislations have been absurd from any viewpoint, so
it's good to see them shot down like wobbly clay pigeons. Control freak
lawmakers and digital profiteers, both can war against the songwriter, if
the voters and customers keep them in power/money.

@groklaw - thanks. I am aware of the differences in law now, but was curious why someone would deny my awesome Widget 2 the same perpetual protection offered for a song.

Peace,
Andy.

So the reason for bringing this thread back to life is nice quote from an article published on the Guardian website today…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/feb/20/adele-brit-award s-indie-success

But Martin Mills [of independent record label XL] ... attributes the rise of indie to several factors. The most important is the internet having levelled the playing field. "You can be a little guy playing by little guys' rules, but that doesn't stop you from accessing the world market," said Mills. "Bigger players are in trouble, because online challenges [illegal downloading] have harmed their businesses more than they've harmed us."

Sounds to me like the independent labels are quite happy with current arrangements, which flies in the face of the calls for tougher laws and greater control!

Peace,
Andy.

A blog piece at the Telegraph, about why perpetual copyright is important:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/adrianhon/100007156/ infinite-copyright-a-modest-proposal/

Enjoy!

Peace,
Andy.

Should the inventor of the wheel and his/her forebears be compensated in perpetuity?

One would think so, but apparently the wheel was not "invented" but "evolved" ... at least according to JJ.

So ... royalties for entire blood line: denied!

Bummer

Peace,
Andy.

When thieves are allowed to freely steal the physical widget 2, as they commonly steal
digital items, the subject goes into different legal and emotional territory.

Lets assume the laws change, and protect your design of widget 2, in perpetuity.
When thieves break into your warehouse, and steal the newest batch, are you going to
try and catch them, and prosecute them, or not? You can make another batch, and pay
for better warehouse security, perhaps some superior dongle or C/R on all
the warehouse doors?

Societies that tolerate, or even promote, crimes a, b, and c, are soon faced with
crimes d, e, and f, done by the same troop who experienced insufficient deterrent,
in the early goings of a, b, and c.

Governments have largely chosen to lavishly fund themselves, rather than
establish law and order. Both the will, and capacity to prosecute, and jail,
with an even hand, have quickly eroded. Gangs and dictators, however ruthless or civil they may present themselves as, when the cameras are on them, will not
gladly allow personal freedoms to re-emerge as the norm.
Guard the widget, and the song, or enjoy the next wave of poverty.