6 ms·

Huh? There's two copyrights - the copyright for the physical recording which is now 35 years and there is the songwriter copyright which is country by country b

Huh? There's two copyrights - the copyright for the physical recording which is now 35 years and there is the songwriter copyright which is country by country but generally 50 to 70 years. The latter favor the artists so that they can receive royalties for their lifetime. Without that the songs would fall into the public domain while they artists was likely still alive. See: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copy...

nitrogen 9y ago
Without that the songs would fall into the public domain while they artists was likely still alive. That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing? And US copyright is definitely longer than 35 or 50 years -- try uploading an Elvis track to YouTube; I bet someone would notice.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing?" For centuries? Given that commercial recordings weren't widely available until the end of the 18th century I am not sure where you are getting this from. You are mixing different things - there is a songwriter copyright and the recording copy right. A song being in the public domain(the expire of the songwriters copyright) doesn't mean you get to use the recording however you see fit. It means you can use the song as in record the song yourself and not pay royalties to Elvis's estate or whoever actually authored the song. The terms of the recording copyright determine who owns the physical recording. Often after a number of years these can revert back to the original performer. This is known as a "reversion." Upon a reversion the original performer can then license the original recording as they please - as reissues, for inclusion on compilations etc. This is why you can't upload an Elvis song to youtube - because Elvis Presley Enterprises own the recording.

nitrogen 9y ago

Without that the songs would fall into the public domain while they artists was likely still alive. That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing? And US copyright is definitely longer than 35 or 50 years -- try uploading an Elvis track to YouTube; I bet someone would notice.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing?" For centuries? Given that commercial recordings weren't widely available until the end of the 18th century I am not sure where you are getting this from. You are mixing different things - there is a songwriter copyright and the recording copy right. A song being in the public domain(the expire of the songwriters copyright) doesn't mean you get to use the recording however you see fit. It means you can use the song as in record the song yourself and not pay royalties to Elvis's estate or whoever actually authored the song. The terms of the recording copyright determine who owns the physical recording. Often after a number of years these can revert back to the original performer. This is known as a "reversion." Upon a reversion the original performer can then license the original recording as they please - as reissues, for inclusion on compilations etc. This is why you can't upload an Elvis song to youtube - because Elvis Presley Enterprises own the recording.