4 ms·

If an indie artists created a song a studio could immediately remake the song and sell it before the artists had any distribution in place. 2 to 3 years should

If an indie artists created a song a studio could immediately remake the song and sell it before the artists had any distribution in place. 2 to 3 years should give the artists the opportunity to make some profit from his music.

yoklov 15y ago
Hardly. If the length were 2-3 years then the studios could (and probably would) remake songs by indie artists which didn't become popular in the first 2-3 years. Copyright of 2-3 years is better than no copyright at all, but it's so short that it's basically useless.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  Studios would spend their own money remaking songs that had failed to garner interest in the first place? Not only does that seem like a way to make a lot of flops, but if the original flopped for some reason that's correctable by someone else in order to make a hit, then isn't it a win for everyone for there to be a hit remake (the original writer/artist at least gets recognition that they would otherwise not have had)?
  - yoklov 15y ago
    I have more of a problem with the fact that it could happen. Besides, you really don't think there would be a market for taking less well known songs, rebranding them to make them palatable to the masses, and selling that? I can't imagine that if it were completely legal, they wouldn't try.
tzs 15y ago
What about artists whose songs take more than 2 or 3 years to become popular? You don't think an artist should get anything if he writes a song that does so-so until it is featured a few years later in a hit movie and then the song becomes a hit? Or what about people who write books? Shouldn't they get money if their book is turned into a movie? With only 2 to 3 years of copyright, many books will go public domain long before a major movie can be put together.
Arelius 15y ago
I think it deserves mention that without copyright, a studio doesn't even need to remake a song, they could rather simply and legally re-release the original, now public-domain song.

yoklov 15y ago

Hardly. If the length were 2-3 years then the studios could (and probably would) remake songs by indie artists which didn't become popular in the first 2-3 years. Copyright of 2-3 years is better than no copyright at all, but it's so short that it's basically useless.

randallsquared 15y ago
Studios would spend their own money remaking songs that had failed to garner interest in the first place? Not only does that seem like a way to make a lot of flops, but if the original flopped for some reason that's correctable by someone else in order to make a hit, then isn't it a win for everyone for there to be a hit remake (the original writer/artist at least gets recognition that they would otherwise not have had)?
- yoklov 15y ago
  I have more of a problem with the fact that it could happen. Besides, you really don't think there would be a market for taking less well known songs, rebranding them to make them palatable to the masses, and selling that? I can't imagine that if it were completely legal, they wouldn't try.

tzs 15y ago

What about artists whose songs take more than 2 or 3 years to become popular? You don't think an artist should get anything if he writes a song that does so-so until it is featured a few years later in a hit movie and then the song becomes a hit? Or what about people who write books? Shouldn't they get money if their book is turned into a movie? With only 2 to 3 years of copyright, many books will go public domain long before a major movie can be put together.

Arelius 15y ago

I think it deserves mention that without copyright, a studio doesn't even need to remake a song, they could rather simply and legally re-release the original, now public-domain song.