Just heard that the EU had extended copyrights in sound recordings by 20 years. They had been fixed at 50 years, but guess whose songs started coming out about 50 years ago. Yup, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Hard to believe, I know. But those valuable copyrights were about the expire over there (here, our Congress has seen to it that they will last a full 95 years, I think). And what's the solution? Extend the copyrights, so these bands can enjoy another 20 years of revenues.
Bottom line: If they are still fighting for more after 50 years of copyright, you know they've made millions and millions based on the existing copyrights. That's really all they deserve or need, isn't it? The deal at the time they made the recordings was 50 years (probably less, actually -- I haven't checked). What possible basis is there for changing the deal that was already made between the public and the artist in favor of the rich guy?
The reason, of course, is it's supposedly "unfair" to some already extremely-very rich artists. But since when do deals get undone just because they are unfair?
Bottom line: If they are still fighting for more after 50 years of copyright, you know they've made millions and millions based on the existing copyrights. That's really all they deserve or need, isn't it? The deal at the time they made the recordings was 50 years (probably less, actually -- I haven't checked). What possible basis is there for changing the deal that was already made between the public and the artist in favor of the rich guy?
The reason, of course, is it's supposedly "unfair" to some already extremely-very rich artists. But since when do deals get undone just because they are unfair?
No comments:
Post a Comment