Manitoba Music | BLOG
KRAM RAN
CRISS-CROSS CROSS
TUESDAY BLOOM
TUESDAY BLOOM
THE PUSHING DAISIES
YOUR DEVILS AND YOUR AN...
MATTHEW RANKIN VISITS ROTW CLUB
RECORD OF THE WEEK CLUB
THAT'S ALL
DOC WALKER
LONELY
TEAM REZOFFICIAL
GET THE GIG: BOOKING SHOWS AND TOURS
OCTOBER 3, 2008
WHAT'S THE DEAL? ENTERTAINMENT LAW AND MUSIC INDUSTRY CONTRACTS
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
SOUTHERN EXPOSURE: BREAKING THE US SHOWCASE AT THE ACADEMY
SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
MANITOBA MUSIC BLOG
European Copyright
EU PROPOSES TO EXTEND COPYRIGHT FOR PERFORMERS
Posted by Sean McManus
July 23, 2008 at 11:26am
-
12 comments
These rights are usually referred to as neighbouring rights in Canada. They allow performers on recordings, not the feature royalty performer or songwriter, but the side players, to collect performance royalties. The current term of 50 years means that performers can outlive the copyright, losing a revenue stream late in life, when arguably they need it the most.
The extended protection would also apply to record companies, allowing labels to generate increased revenues on back catalog as the industry continues toward increased digital distribution and falling CD sales.
This proposal follows other unsucessful attempts to extend copyright, most noteably in the UK. In 2005 the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property advised against copyright extension.
Unfortunately for Canadian performers and record companies, recent Canadian copyright debates and the proposed copyright reform legislation are stuck in a place far from this issue. Current copyright terms in Canada are 50 years. Extended copyright terms for performers would provide income and recognition where it is well deserved, with the performers.
COMMENTS
This is bullsh*t! 95 years? F that. Greedy greedy greedy. Presuming a performer (note, not even just the author) actually lives to see the expiry of their copyright, It's safe to say they got their worth, probably within the first 20 years.
I think copyright should expire 20 years after creation (not 20 years after the death of the creator). And corporations should not be allowed to "assume" the copyright of a published work. It should be for authors & creators, not for business interest protection!
I'm sick sick sick that these organizations are bastardizing copyright. Copyright is not about content sharing... it's about protecting creators from bootleggers and people trying to pass work off as their own.
I think I'm going back to soulseek. Screw you record industry! I'll spend my money on concert tickets and merchandise and you're CDs, DVDs and itunes/amazons can go fuck themselves!
So just to get this straight.
You would like the shareholders of the major broadcasters and media companies to keep getting richer off the work of artists, playing recordings to sell advertising on their monopolized networks. And as these shareholders get older, they keep getting richer, and all they need to do is have money to make money.
Meanwhile, you would like artists, musicians, performers to not benefit from that source of income. You would like them to have to keep playing concerts and selling t-shirts in order to put any money in their pocket. They don't have a pension and they don't want to be on the road away from loved ones all their lives, into the twilight years. They've worked hard and shareholders from big corporations are benefiting from their work, but they should not?
And you would like there to not be copyrighted because that benefits you how exactly? So you can "share" their content with no compensation to the creators. That is truly greedy.
thanks for putting words into my mouth there Sean. I interpret this legislation as greedy and you interpret my reaction as greedy. Great.
#1 - I do not believe that "shareholders" and "corporations" should be making money off copyrighted works, off artists/creators backs. All along I have been opposing big business takeover (bastardization) of copyright.
#2 - you go to folk fest. Jazz fest. You've seen the stones, the who, paul mccartney, etc. You know just as well as I that a real musician (not manufactured flavour of the week pop artists) will play music until they drop. BUT, how is it that hired session musicians get to take a cut of that for 100 years? They were hired to do a job, they got paid for their job. It's the creator that should get control over their works, not the corporations, and not the vendors that were hired to help produce the work. If this is to be the case, I, as a graphic designer would like royalties for the next 95 years for every CD cover and poster and t-shirt design I have ever created for a band. Where is my cheque?
#3 - I still believe that sharing is not infringing. I'm not talking about downloading gigabytes upon gigabytes of mp3s just to say I have a huge library. I'm talking about this push by the industry lobbyists to outlaw the act of sharing. That my friend is not what copyright laws were ever supposed to enforce.
Figure it out. Music existed before recorded media and it will survive long after the profit motive has disappeared. Real musicians, real artists do it for love.
I proudly do not buy CD because I look forward to the day that music just exists and isn't something that one needs to "afford the rights to"
PS... I hope you never sing (publicly perform) "happy birthday to you" without paying royalties. After all, someone owns it, and you do not have the right to share it.
At least not until 2030, when the US$5 million copyright supposedly expires. Although some smart people say that it isn't actually still under copyright. en.wikipedia.org
I look forward to the day when artists are so well-taken-care-of that they don't need people to buy their stuff. Star Trek predicts this, I think.
B. Ehinger, since you don't buy cd's I'm looking for a graphic designer who does not charge out of principal, rather because HE LOVES IT! Gosh thats generous of you.
Until the Star Trek universe arrives, I will keep paying $30000 to record an album, encourage people to pay for copies, thus paying off the massive debt for "something I LOOOVE" and maybe, just maybe have the chance to own a residence, and live above the poverty line.
And let's be honest, the Beatles, Stones, The Who broke about...40 years ago and survey says things have changed, and gosh I'm sure the Stones keep having ONE LAST TOURS every year, but surely out of love and not for money. Dude, get real.
John,
we design CDs because we love them... thats why instead of artists paying around $5000.00 for a CD design (usually what the times worth) they pay more like $500.00 - $1000.00. And sometimes we dont even get anything because the artist has no $ to pay for work done. This conversation is pretty common around the studios in WPG, we rarely get the $ for the time it takes to do a quality CD project... So I think we have put in our share of "for the love"... but why do I keep coming back for more? because I love it.
Anyone need a CD design? cheap?
Copyright is important but I think a balance has to be struck. I feel that if you can't capitalize on your creation in 50 years then it's probably not very good.
Much of this push is due to the impending expiry of Disney (m.mouse) and other big time copyrights. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is for the love of art...
When copyright expires, the entire culture benefits. Can someone show me some numbers of all these artists who have outlived their copyright and spend days in line for the soup kitchen?? Lets hear it.
B, the point is you still need and receive money for your time, as do I. Unless you want to register as a charity (who also require money to survive) someone has to pay your bills, life needs money. A chef is an artist but I don't see too many chefs handing out free filets because they are just so darn proud of their creation. It's okay to be properly compensated for your time and effort, please ask someone in your office for a hug.
John
Thanks for backing me up Craig,
John, If I was compensated fairly for the CD and poster art I have done for musicians over the past 10 years I wouldn't be sitting around eating ramen noodles like the rest of the starving artists. And once my job is done I don't get residual royalties for the mass distribution of my work. Technically I should be compensated for every additional usage of my art. Such as if I design a CD cover I should receive compensation for my design being appropriated on posters, t-shirts, other formats (LP, cassette, digital download), and I won't even get into the situations that occur when a band decides to take my files and change them by themselves, or utilizing the "cousin who has photoshop and is just as good as any professional designer" without consultation or consideration for the designers craft (also a breach of the graphic designs inherent copyright).
As for digital distribution of music (or any art for that matter). Digital distribution (and I include CDs and DVDs in that equation) do not offer the same emotional response as physical interaction does. As an example, I can view Andy Worhol prints, or Jackson Pollocks paintings for free on the internet, but I wouldn't get the same emotional response as paying to see them at full scale in person at a real live art gallery. Are the estates of these great artists losing revenue because I can see their art for free on the internet? Do those digital reproductions of their masterpieces have even close to the same value as the original? I think not.
Despite my strong words, I DO believe in all artists being fairly compensated for time and effort and yes, talent. However doing a job once then expecting to sit around and get residual payments for the rest of your life X2 is a lazy way of making a living. Offer me a tangible, physical, personal experience and I will gladly pay double, triple, quadruple that of an impersonal, cold, digital representation of your efforts.
And I like what Raks said. "When copyright expires, the entire culture benefits." This I believe is true.
The thing is that businesses need to be able to rely on ownership of copyright in order to exist. The "knowledge economy" makes up nearly half of the modern economy. Without copyright and intellectual property that simply wouldn't exist. Half the economy gone. Not just music and movies, this includes art, architecture, medicine, design, environmental innovations, etc. And copyright and intellectual property are their biggest assets.
In music, record labels and music business companies need to be able to put a value on copyright, it's their most significant asset, it allows them to generate income, and it allows them to leverage funding and investment. And we need businesses in the music business. They are not all evil - businesses help artists every day. Sure, we all know that the major labels don't act in the interests of artists, or fans for that matter. But I meet independent record label owners everyday who do believe in art, sharing art, and getting great art out into the world. They work closely with artists and have very similar goals to artists. These are the people that we serve, and these are the people who deserve a copyright regime that recognizes their investment in art and culture and compensates them for it. It all falls apart without copyright.
The graphic design issue is an interesting comparison. I would agree that copyright and the rights of artists in the visual art and design worlds is generally more complicated and less developed than in the music world.
Sorry, we are no longer accepting comments for this article...
