I only caught a bit of it, but it seems that the fight to extend the ownership of music to more than 70 years has been lost. Mike was saying how people who created music in their teens would like to hope it would provide even a meagre pension in retirement. Apparently, Bruce Welsh is one of those who's early recordings are just coming out of copyright. Mike Batt said that 95 years, like in the USA, would be more acceptable.

Others on this board probably know more about it.

I think radio 4 did say 70 years, but it's actually 50 at present. Maybe they got it mixed up with book copyright.

The Musicians' Union tonight urged the Government to ``move heaven and earth'' to extend copyright protection for recording artists after talks on a deal broke down in Brussels.

EU ambassadors failed to agree on plans to virtually double copyright protection to give musicians and performers copyright safeguards for 95 years instead of losing the rights to their own works after 50 years.


www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-n...ht-deal-1689537.html

I think this is the most depressing era ever known for musicians and composers. They are getting shafted big time since the issue of copyright looks like it's not going to change, but worse still is how any possible sales are being killed by the lack of music retailers. To rub salt into the wound, most are being ripped off via iTunes, barely getting a penny from download sales and THEN you have torrents and music blogs in a free for all giving away everything in sight. Then you have the disgraceful silent menace of Google controlling YouTube and trying to rip off the PRS, meaning even less money for musicians.

On the live front there is the loathsome "pay to play". Another thread here asked where all the protest singers of today are... well, they certainly aren't getting many gigs or any notice mainly because of "pay to play". What "pay to play" is, is a filter - it filters out working class talents who are angry and have many things to say because they cannot afford the ransom fees. Those who can are bland complacent middle class twits with damn all to say or offer.

Music continues to be consumed but it's barely selling. mp3, YouTube and other digital developments are having a disastrous effect and it looks like it can only get much worse.

Something has GOT to change and very soon.

Al wrote:
I only caught a bit of it, but it seems that the fight to extend the ownership of music to more than 70 years has been lost. Mike was saying how people who created music in their teens would like to hope it would provide even a meagre pension in retirement. Apparently, Bruce Welsh is one of those who's early recordings are just coming out of copyright. Mike Batt said that 95 years, like in the USA, would be more acceptable.

Others on this board probably know more about it.

Actually I understood that Bruce Welsh lost his permorming rights royalties over 20 years ago! His original EMI contract only paid him performace royalties for 25 years. (Like everyone else, he still receives publishing royalties, as these do not run out after 50 years, and he didn't sign them awat).

Come on Elliot. The internet is the liberator of artists who have the brains to opt out of the rat race.

You DON'T have to use Youtube.
You DON'T have to give mp3s away.
You DON'T have to send your music to bloggers.
You DON't have to use iTunes.

All you need is a website and Google. That's it. If artists are too lazy or too stupid to stop being shafted then they deserve all they get. If you want to swim with sharks don't get upset if they bite or eat you.

You are an idiot. And exactly how do you let people know of your product? Marketing and advertising/PR will always be a necessity for any new artist to make their mark and attract interest.

IME wrote:
Come on Elliot. The internet is the liberator of artists who have the brains to opt out of the rat race.

Bullshit.

I take it you must be one of those maniac bloggers who go about tossing away every album they can get their hands on or flooding sites like Pirate Bay, all of whom think music (and movies and books) should be FREE. Their attitude is "screw the record companies" but it's the ARTISTES who are getting screwed left right and centre.

If you find your work being illegally given away on Blogger, you have to mess about filing a DMCA. Blogger - owned by Google - don't give a toss. Your music can be on 50 blogs. You have to file 50 DMCA's. Then the blog you file against splash it all over their blog and call you all the assholes under the Sun and to spite you, they'll make sure that work appears on another 50 blogs which I then have to file individual DMCA's against.

Record companies who own this material sit on their fat arses doing NOTHING. The artistes have to spend time and money trying to stop the rampant piracy and it's a never ending vicious circle.

Not all of us have nice big bank accounts like Prince and U2 who can afford to fight all these pirate idiots. No. We are being shafted right where it hurts. Royalties are dwindling.

I am expected to write an album. Great. I have to pay musicians to play the songs. Rehearsal time and space. Costs ME money. Recording time. Costs ME money. Mixing. Costs ME money. Releasing the product. Costs ME money.

Then just ONE asshole buys my CD or download and then "liberates" it via a blog or torrents... and that's it. Everybody can and does grab it for FREE then. I don't get any of my costs back. Then toss in the insult that is "pay to play"... it's like throwing money into a black hole, and I'm supposed to be happy because everyone's enjoying and sharing my music for FREE and my bills ain't getting paid.


Go to Google. Type in any album you can think of, along with mp3 or Rapidshare. 9 times out of 10, links will appear taking you to a blog, forum or torrent, and bingo... there it is to be grabbed for free.

You DON'T have to use Youtube.
No, but theres no stopping people slapping up unauthorised clips of my work from which I don't get a penny.


You DON'T have to give mp3s away.
No, because bloggers and P2P users do that whether you like it or not.


You DON'T have to send your music to bloggers.
No, because one blogger posts your work, others download it and then THEY put it up on THEIR blogs. It spreads like wildfire.

IME wrote:
If artists are too lazy or too stupid to stop being shafted then they deserve all they get. If you want to swim with sharks don't get upset if they bite or eat you.
What a nice guy YOU are. Too many artistes cannot do a damn thing thanks to their work being "owned" by faceless corporations. Where are the BPI? Where are the MU? The RIAA? What are THEY doing to protect the rights and properties of THEIR clients?

NOTHING. They still rake in the money from which you get damn all.


Why don't YOU form a band from scratch right now. Get it to learn and rehearse an albums worth of material, record it, mix it, release it and then pay to play live? You'll need a mortgage and you'll stand no chance of ever recouping.

There's lots of disinformation about the copyright issue - the 50-year one under discussion is performance copyright, songwriters (or their estates) will still be entitled to royalties until X years after their deaths (50? Sorry, I'm not an expert.)

The notion of Public Domain and the expiry of copyright revolves around The Public Interest, in that it does not serve the public interest to have intellectual copyright kept under lock and key forever by rights holders who can't be bothered to reissue it, and no 50-year-old recordings have done anything other more than pay for the postage for the royalty cheque. In essence you get 50 years to make as much money as you can, then everyone gets a shot.

Admittedly these rules were set at a time when no-one imagined any kind of longevity for such works, but it's only a matter of scale, and it's the reason we now get to enjoy endless classical music and literature either cheap or free. Yes, performances made before 1959 are now public domain, but there's nothing to stop Bruce Welch (for instance) starting his own label and re-issuing his old Shadows recordings himself.

PS ELLIOTT - agreed on all your points, but none of them are to do with the nature of copyright, though I agree it's one more straw on a sh*tty camel's back for musicians right now...

More prominent artists should be speaking out about the YouTube/PRS situation and educating the public as to why YouTube are entirely in the wrong.

IME, you are a very sad little man.