In England, the music industry is gearing up to fight a loophole in the law that allows songs to be issued in Europe without needing to pay royalties to the owners.
Starting on 1 January 2005, copies of songs can be issued in Europe 50 years after their release without the need for payments to copyright owners.
It could affect records by Chuck Berry, James Brown - and by 2013, The Beatles.
In the USA, copyrights have been extended to a staggering 95 years, which seems unnecessary. But honestly, where does one draw the limit? Fifty years seems short when you see that the Beatles' catalog will start to become available in 2013. When should material fall in public domain? And who is to prevent everyone and their brother from murdering "classic" music or compositions?
Copyright material gets murdered every year on American Idol. There is no salvation from the murderers. [They make for great entertainment-remember a large kid in a blue sweater named Danny Buell?] Classical music (OLD classical, like Bach or Beethoven) gets murdered at piano recitals constantly, yet everyone seems to remember how it's supposed to go. It'll be interesting to see if the old rock has the same staying power.
50 years seems terribly long to me. It covers most of the life of the artist. We don't need to be paying royalties to all the future generations after the artist dies. They should have enough $$ passed down to them already.
Perhaps it should be xx years after the death of the artist/composer themselves. That would seem most fair. Then the future generations aren't making mega bucks off of an artist in the family. Dusty told me that in the Netherlands it's 50 years after the death of the artist. That seems fair.
Ignoracia said: but making money off it, is the same as stealing somebodies work.
Nobody's stealing anything. When an artist dies, the rights to his estate go to someone in the family, right? This includes the right to collect royalty payments for songs as long as the copyright is valid.
