The Problem with Extending Copyright on Music

[DaBees-Knees]

http://torrentfreak.com/org-to-host-copyright-extension-roundtable-090124/

Several studies have shown that an extension of copyright on sound recordings is a bad idea. It will lead to less competition and higher prices while only the record labels benefit from it.

Now there's an observation for you.   

Last summer, EEC Commissioner McCreevy stated he intends to increase the length of copyright on performances, from their current 50 year length to 95 years. This was to ‘help’ those artists who just didn’t get paid enough over those 50 years, and are in danger of being penniless. The Open Rights Group (ORG) believes that that is unacceptable. It has co-produced a video explaining why this is a bad idea on the Commissions behalf, and has set up a meeting in Brussels with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to discuss this. The Directive, due to be voted on some time in the near future, will mainly be to the benefit of large record label, and not small artists and session players, as proponents claim.

Why not make it 500 years? It's just as stupid. Having seen reports of just how much the likes of the RIAA hive off, I'm not surprised that some artists finish up penniless.

[White Stripes]

Why not make it 500 years?

they will... give it time... if they dont go bankrupt from suing music fans first...

[Trestor]

If they are so concerned that struggling artists should receive revenue, they should legislate existing contracts out of existence and impose that all artists must receive at least 50% of all gross income, for the problem isn't that musicians should continue to receive returns until their grandchildren grow up, but that they receive only a pittance even now, when the copyright is in place.

To put it another way, copyright doesn't help the artist much if the contract doesn't allow the artist a good return, and an extension of time can only help the industry labels.