Book writers have copyright for 50 years after the writer's death.

Why is music 50 years after its creation?

Makes no sense.

The copyright for music writers is life plus 70 years. I think this is long enough to stimulate their creativity.

The copyright on SOUND RECORDINGS is "only" 50 years. But isnt this long enough?
If EMI couldnt rely on the Beatles and the Beach Boys maybe they would find some new music to invest in ...

It's hard to see the logic - but are they actually losing very much? (For example, when the early Elvis material becomes copyright free next year - will they actually sell any????)

Of Course they will MM, "ElvisLove" is probably already recorded!

I fell he's done well enough and has little or no reason for complaint.

If I painted a picture or put a car together once it's sold it's sold. People Like Cliff Richard and Elvis were paid to do a job (Record a song) that job done I think they're rather fortunate to have had return income for as long as they have.

Doesn't the song-writer enjoy the same as an author of a book, it is the performer who "only" gets paid for the next 50 years.

If a body wants to get paid for writing songs then... er... write some songs

<<< Of Course they will MM, "ElvisLove" is probably already recorded >>>

I doubt it, Martin. Elvis has no credibility left - the diehards will buy anything (but they are a dwindling number).

Can you name ANYONE other than Elvis (about to go out of copyright) that this might apply to?

Yes but Zoo, a lot of the long term high royalty earning artistes, will actually have a large entourage of employed people, interested parties, companies around them etc.
It`s not just the "face" or individual that will be affected by a lower cushion of earnings, a lot of new projects, including music (big time in fact)are funded by the generation that will be affected by the ruling, which is exactly the opposite of which the report suggested.

If new projects are in danger through record companies relying on artistes from 50 years ago I would say the problem is the record companies and not the expiring copyright.

I appreciate that a performer will employ other people, if that performer is making appearances then the cost of those employees will be met by the appearance fee. If the artiste is dormant then they don't need employees.

Anyone receiving significant royalties after 50 years must be in the game enough to earn by other means.

Other employees do their job get paid and that's an end to it. Why should a hired singer be any different?

When I have often employed session guys(this throws new light on it and takes it off on a tangent), but is relevent to employed singers, the guys are allways offered three ways of payment, straight fee, small fee + royalty points, or royalty points only.
This actually works as great a+r and guages it in such a way.
On a sleeper hit, when the musician believes in the product, his MCPS will eventually vanish as well one assumes.
And you are right about expiring copyright funding new product, where would EMI be without the Floyd and the Beatles.
nb, Floyd were allowed very adequate developement time, and it has made million mate, and made a lot of people very happy.