3 ms·
What music from the 1940es is such a great moneymaker today that copyright holders can't bear to lose distribution privileges? Rarely are even 2 year old tunes
by iwwr 15y ago
What music from the 1940es is such a great moneymaker today that copyright holders can't bear to lose distribution privileges? Rarely are even 2 year old tunes really big sellers.
- revorad 15y agoDon't know about the 40's but I expect the Beatles still sell a lot.
- demallien 15y agoFrom the 40s, I don't know, but that's not really the question. Before this vote, the limit was set at 50 years, which meant that all those bands from the 1960s, who are still making decent money, would start to lose income. Think the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, the Supremes, Bob Dylan. Of course, I don't feel terribly much sympathy for them - they've all lived lives of privilege that I will probably never know, and I don't see why they should be able to continue making even more money from something they did half a century ago. I wouldn't mind so much, except that in the music world, the idea of a derived work has received such a broad definition by the legal system. I mean, I don't think it unreasonable that the Beatles should continue to receive money for copies of their performance of Hey Jude, but why can't another artist do a cover without having to pay them, 50 years down the track? IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it!
- michael_dorfman 15y agoI mean, I don't think it unreasonable that the Beatles should continue to receive money for copies of their performance of Hey Jude, but why can't another artist do a cover without having to pay them, 50 years down the track? IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it! This extension only applies to their recordings (as performers). The songwriting copyright is already set at 70 years, so nothing is changing there.
- epo 15y ago"IP was supposed to aid creative expression, not stifle it!" IP is supposed to benefit creators not plagiarists. Copying someone elses' work is not creative expression.
- iwwr 15y agoThere are creative interpretations of existing works (or parodies) or simply sampling for electronic music. Creation involves some degree of imitation.
- epo 15y agoSampling is blatantly non-creative, "parody" is simply a weasely justification for riding on the coat tails of someone else's accomplishment, "creative interpretation" ditto.
- _delirium 15y agoNot a big fan of jazz, I take it? (It'd be interesting there if the extension were not to 70 years, but to 170 years; much of the music industry's jazz catalogue would retroactively be plagiarism, because it frequently quotes from out of copyright jazz standards, and even older folk songs.)
- masklinn 15y agoCopyright extensions are not retroactive, fwiw. Once a copyright has lapsed, it's gone forever.
- toyg 15y agoTell that to Walt Disney -- last I checked, he built his fortune by "plagiarizing" out-of-copyright stories. And what about all those movies based on Wells, Verne, Conan-Doyle, Christie, Austen? One of the most successful songs ever, in economic terms, is "Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum: a blatant riff on two compositions by Bach. The likes of Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton would have gone nowhere without the ability to ransack the humongous catalogue of blues classics -- if the original black musicians and composers had enjoyed modern copyright terms, you wouldn't have had any of that. Same for Bob Dylan and folk songs. All art is derivative, originality is a myth.
- estel 15y agoWhat about Happy Birthday?