3 ms·

That's surprisingly honest from Sony labelling it as what it is, rather than pretending whilst we all can see what it's purpose was. Seems like another example

That's surprisingly honest from Sony labelling it as what it is, rather than pretending whilst we all can see what it's purpose was. Seems like another example of how much copyright laws need reworking when things like this are par for the course though.

objclxt 14y ago
It is worth noting that when the extension was first proposed the European Commission paid for a report that recommended the law remain as it was, since none of the arguments for a copyright extension were convincing. Thanks to some rather effective lobbying this was ignored, although the proposal was modified from the 95 years the industry wanted to 50 years. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf is the report itself, if you are interested in such things. Interestingly, you'll find certain artists much more passionate about retaining their recording rights than others. Cliff Richard was one of the major proponents for the EU extension, whereas Noel Gallagher is on the record as not really caring at all[1]. It's not a coincidence that the former wrote virtually none of his songs, and the latter will own much more lucrative publishing rights (which have the standard life+70 clause) in addition to recording rights. [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law-beatles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extens...
- alexkus 14y ago
  They're probably happy with 50 years. Ask for 95 years and then get beaten down to 50 years and make them think the other side 'won' something by getting it down from 95.
  - koralatov 14y ago
    I'd agree with that. It's a classic negotiating tactic, like when you ask for a pay-rise: you want 10%, so you ask for 20%; they baulk at your `insane' demand, then you `settle' for a more reasonable 10%.
  - Avenger42 14y ago
    Not to mention all it really means is they're coming back to lobby again in 50 years, instead of 95 years. It's not like they win the battle once and don't fight it again.
koralatov 14y ago
It is pretty astounding that they're so open about the reasoning behind it. This boxset reminds me of ashcan copies[1], which I read about a while ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy
lukeschlather 14y ago
As much as I'd like to see copyright terms reduced, this law clearly had the intended effect. Without the copyright extension, it sounds like Sony would not have released these old recordings at all. They don't really seem to be music lovers, and they have no reason to hold on to old recordings unless they can sell them.

objclxt 14y ago

It is worth noting that when the extension was first proposed the European Commission paid for a report that recommended the law remain as it was, since none of the arguments for a copyright extension were convincing. Thanks to some rather effective lobbying this was ignored, although the proposal was modified from the 95 years the industry wanted to 50 years. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf is the report itself, if you are interested in such things. Interestingly, you'll find certain artists much more passionate about retaining their recording rights than others. Cliff Richard was one of the major proponents for the EU extension, whereas Noel Gallagher is on the record as not really caring at all[1]. It's not a coincidence that the former wrote virtually none of his songs, and the latter will own much more lucrative publishing rights (which have the standard life+70 clause) in addition to recording rights. [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law-beatles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extens...

alexkus 14y ago
They're probably happy with 50 years. Ask for 95 years and then get beaten down to 50 years and make them think the other side 'won' something by getting it down from 95.
- koralatov 14y ago
  I'd agree with that. It's a classic negotiating tactic, like when you ask for a pay-rise: you want 10%, so you ask for 20%; they baulk at your `insane' demand, then you `settle' for a more reasonable 10%.
- Avenger42 14y ago
  Not to mention all it really means is they're coming back to lobby again in 50 years, instead of 95 years. It's not like they win the battle once and don't fight it again.

koralatov 14y ago

It is pretty astounding that they're so open about the reasoning behind it. This boxset reminds me of ashcan copies[1], which I read about a while ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_copy

lukeschlather 14y ago

As much as I'd like to see copyright terms reduced, this law clearly had the intended effect. Without the copyright extension, it sounds like Sony would not have released these old recordings at all. They don't really seem to be music lovers, and they have no reason to hold on to old recordings unless they can sell them.