EU Extends Copyright Protection From 50 To 70 Years
 

Over the objections of eight countries, ministers from the European Union on Monday extended copyright protection for performers and record producers from 50 to 70 years. The move brought cheers from the recording industry and copyright royalty collecting societies, but doubts from some governments and jeers from a major consumer group....

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/...0-to-70-years/

:upsidedow

"copyright royalty collecting societies" nice to see everyone benefitting :winkwink:

Getting almost as bad as the US. Total bullshit.

The nerve of some people, wanting to extend the rights of things they create and own, and make a little money from it.

Yes, total bullshit for people not wanting others to profit off of their intellectual work. How dare they!

Imagine the money Disney would be losing if Steamboat Willie was Public Domain!

Thank god for copyright!

I had a chat with a pirate who was/is going legit. "He said nobody goes after me for this content, as it is Royalty FREE."

you are lucky and have a big hit when you're 20 and even at 70 you still make a living from it. and then suddenly they take your income away from you and everyone else can make money with it without ever having to pay something for it - to anyone.

fair?

Its about time! Its been 70 years in the UK since 1988..

I just heard a far off thudd!!!!!

Sounded like Gideongallery banging his head.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

70 years fits nicely into people's lifespan nowadays. Makes sense IMO.

The life expectancy worldwide is 67.2 years.

like any of that matters in this day and age. could make it a billion years and wont change shit.

hell NO !!!! Hence my 1st comment, I could start a copyright collecting society(The Ma Dalton Memorial Society) and take away your earnings:winkwink:

shhhhhh!

i am not sure if there's eventually a copyright on "Ma Dalton" :upsidedow :helpme

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

Copyright was NEVER meant to be forever. Try reading the US Constiution. If you created something 100 years ago I think the time for you to still be profiting on it has long sicne passed.

US Constitution Article 1 Secition 8 Clause 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

which part of LIMITED TIMES is too hard for you to grasp?

and the US constitution applies to the rest of the world as well?

Well everyone else that work at REAL jobs get paid ONCE. So if you got paid over and over again for 50 years you should consider yourself lucky. Seriously just because someone writews a hit song when they are 20 they shouldn't have to work EVER again? What make them so fucking special? I've never gotten this attitude.

No I was talking about US copyright laws which are even worse than these new EU laws.

Guess what, any one of us can get and use Charlie Chaplin films without permission or payment. Is that wrong? Nope. No one involved with making his films is alive.

well, i was a musician for 10 years and always dreaming about that :winkwink:


when my father runs a successful company i will inherit it. if my father makes a successful movie others will profit.

Lifetime of the creator seems limited to me.

What solid argument could you possibly make for stripping the rights of an artist of their own work? Seriously? What solid argument? The only argument for stripping artists rights is that somebody somewhere doesn't want to pay to access their works. That isn't much of an argument.

There are some solid arguments behind science. Keeping technology limited and restricted is not good for the overall betterment of the people. A man keeping the rights to his painting, his book, or his music has no detrimental effect on the people.

Being an artist is not a "real job." Most of them don't make anything at all.

Gideon is too busy to comment. Poor guy now has 20 years of extra content to time shift.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

and as usual Sly is dead on...

Yes! because we should all be able to do what the Chinese do and ignore copyrights and totally rip off Disney!



I mean it's totally not a rip off because they are Chinese and their Micky Mouse is really a cat that is wearing mouse ears. I mean the Chinese totally wouldn't rip off the "entire" Disneyland theme park and pass it off as their own would they?

or an unlicensed Angry Birds Theme Park :winkwink:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_952336.html

This is the standard argument I hear all the time and it is bullshit. First off, the constitution does say for the limited time, but it does not define that amount. Does this mean 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? Limited as compared to what? I think 50-70 years is fair or even creating some kind of a system where a person owns the sole copyright for a period of time then after that it is free for those who want to use it for education/scientific purposes, but those who want to use it for profit still have to deal with the copyright owner.

But back to your argument about getting paid over and over again for working once. It can't be compared to a normal job. Let's look at McDonalds as an example. If you work on the cook line you don't get to make one big mac and get paid for life for it. Why? Because you didn't invent it. You are just hired to build it. The guy who created the Big Mac actually owned 28 McDonalds franchises. He started selling it in a few of them and it did well enough that he sold it in all 28. It took him 2 years to convince the McDonalds corporate honchos to sell it nationwide. He doesn't get a royalty off of the sale of the Big Mac, but their nationwide advertising did help him sell more. So he invented the Big Mac once and sold it over and over for years in his restaurants, getting paid over and over again and again for the same thing. Is that wrong?

Now how does that apply to a song or an album? This month the band Pearl Jam is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the release of their album Ten. If someone goes to the store and buys a CD of their album or buys it from iTunes should the band not get a royalty on it or should all of that money now go to apple or whoever manufactured the CD? Just because they wrote and recorded it 20 years ago does not mean that should have to let others "have their turn" profiting from it. If someone wants to pay for a copy of the album, the band should get a royalty.

If you want to be afforded that same privilege go out and create something that people will want to buy for decades.