EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright
- Thread starter ForHerDeadEyes
- Start date
Kazrog
Kazrog, Inc.
Pedro Teixeira
Member
First of all it's an insane decision to retroactively extend the copyright..
This is just something that will benefit greedy record labels..
If something is public domain, it's public domain..
Imagine having used material from public domain songs, and suddenly you have to pay for your own creation.. and have to recall it, if you're selling it..
I don't know if they demand payment, since it's retroactive..
Wouldn't it be fun to have just printed 10 000 copies of your album that has a public domain song on it, that's suddenly copyrighted?
It feels like going to a supermarket and they're having a chef there to give out free samples of a product..
-Here have a sample of our chocolate cookies!
-Thanks, it tastes good!
-Now I need money, it was free a moment ago, but we now want money!
This is only for the big labels that still want to cash in on The Beatles, Elvis, etc..
kaomao
Member
Elvis and The beatles' songs are not public domains, there people who own the copyrights to their songs if I'm not wrong.
At least Micheal Jackson owned most of the the beatles catalogue and then he sold, before dying, to someone I don't really know who is.
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
EDIT: Wow, looks like that was a false rumor about Jacko giving them to McCartney after all. Anyone got any real info on this?
Audiosprite
ok
sucks for finding old scores. many pieces of music from 1903-1923 aren't commercially available, so public domain pdfs are the only way of getting them. this isn't one of those, but the rite of spring isn't available on imslp in EU anymore.
egan.
daylightdies.com
From the article it sounds like this is an extension on original recording copyrights not writing/publishing (correct me if I'm wrong). If I play on a record when I'm 20 and it keeps selling until I'm 90 I don't see any reason why I and the label I did it for shouldn't be allowed to continue exclusive rights. Or am I misunderstanding?
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
As a rule of thumb, retroactive legislation = BAD
In this case though, I think it won't be too damaging. There'll be some cases where people are using public domain material and suddenly won't be able to, but then equally there'll be some nearly-dead musicians who have done fuck all for the majority of their lives who'll suddenly get to eke out the last gold pieces from their distant youth.
In this case though, I think it won't be too damaging. There'll be some cases where people are using public domain material and suddenly won't be able to, but then equally there'll be some nearly-dead musicians who have done fuck all for the majority of their lives who'll suddenly get to eke out the last gold pieces from their distant youth.
There were some Elvis, Rolling Stones and other, that were to enter the Public Domain..
A lot of public domain music is sold by smaller labels, that big labels don't care about, but suddenly they can't sell them..
Radiostations now have to stop playing music they've been playing.. many radiostations use new music.. but there's also many that play older stuff, and with the retroactive shit, they have to stop playing A LOT of music, since it's stretches 20 years backwards, since it's retroactive.. So the songs between 40's and 60's is now suddenly NOT public domain and the stations can't afford paying for those songs..
And why should they, why should anyone.. because the big buisinesses are greedy.. :/
A lot of public domain music is sold by smaller labels, that big labels don't care about, but suddenly they can't sell them..
Radiostations now have to stop playing music they've been playing.. many radiostations use new music.. but there's also many that play older stuff, and with the retroactive shit, they have to stop playing A LOT of music, since it's stretches 20 years backwards, since it's retroactive.. So the songs between 40's and 60's is now suddenly NOT public domain and the stations can't afford paying for those songs..
And why should they, why should anyone.. because the big buisinesses are greedy.. :/
kaomao
Member
egan.
daylightdies.com
Why would they have to stop playing them? Do you mean they'd have to pay fees to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC? I feel like you are making up things that are going to happen but none of them conform to the way these businesses work.
And again I'll ask, does this change refer to writing or recording copyrights or both?
I don't see any problem with people continuing to make money off their work. You can argue that labels don't deserve to make money but that argument holds a lot less water when the original creators are still alive.
Emdprodukt
Member of Dude Castle 69
Similar threads
