Artists will see this as bullshit too. It's nothing to do with protecting them, they'd be naive to think it was. It's executives lining their pockets, ultimately. They already don't give musicians (particularly bands with a lot of fees and money spread more thinly) a fair cut, and there's no other practical reason for extending song copyright that I can see. Myself, I'm just glad I have very little to do with the commercial western music market these days.
lol capitalism. The creative art industries are pretty soulless now.
also I am glad you haven't thrown in the LJ towel. I admittedly don't always reply myself, though I don't always have anything much to say. I do read the entries though, and I like keeping in touch with what people are up to.
Fortunately, I haven't had much to do with copyright issues yet. But, I'm bound to go into music professionally eventually - and once i do, I'm bound to be landed with a major copyright headache. I want to own my own thoughts, know what I mean?
In fact, Emily Dickinson wrote a very interesting poem on publication:
Publication -- is the Auction Of the Mind of Man -- Poverty -- be justifying For so foul a thing
Possibly -- but We -- would rather From Our Garret go White -- Unto the White Creator -- Than invest -- Our Snow --
Thought belong to Him who gave it -- Then -- to Him Who bear Its Corporeal illustration -- Sell The Royal Air --
In the Parcel -- Be the Merchant Of the Heavenly Grace -- But reduce no Human Spirit To Disgrace of Price --
1) Even if you wanted to use a 50-year-old recording of the Beatles, you've still got to wait until fifty years after the death of Sir Paul, because he still co-owns the composition. Or he did at least... I think he might have sold it to Michael Jackson. But my point stands: it's not just the rights on the recordings, it's the rights on the composition too
( ... )
It's funny how these people think that omitting vowels and slipping in the odd conspicuous grammatical slip makes their language sound 'young' and 'cool'. "Peple in thes jurstictns shld py twce the amont of tx by th nxt fscal yr" - that really sounds like something one of your mates might say! =P
As for copyright, I don't want any copyright extensions for any of my work. 70 years after my death is fine with me. I'll be dead anyway. =P
I'm quite confused as to the situations with publishers. Some composers assign copyright to publishing companies - others keep it themselves. How do I go about keeping mine if any of my work gets published - any ideas? I'd very much like to own my own ideas... =)
RE: copyrights - My guess is that you'd make that part of the contract with the publishing company that's going to sell your stuff. You always need to make sure contracts say exactly what you want them to say. Record labels and publishing houses often count on young, inexperienced musicians to sign contracts that give the company more rights over the music than more experienced musicians would allow; don't let that be you :)
I wouldn't sign any agreement or contract unless I'd read through it carefully and thoroughly - I don't want these people owning everything I ever write. I don't care how it affects royalties - I want to own my own work. I want to be free to revise it, change it, take bits from it and put it in other pieces if I want (self-borrowing didn't stop with Mozart - Elgar did it too!). If I work hard to make music exist out of absolutely nothing, then I want to be able to say that I own the ideas I spent so long putting together, you know what I mean?
Copyright is absolutely bloody frightening in some respects... It's also a major headache. It's taken me years to have any idea of what music, for example, is in copyright and what isn't.
Man, copyright laws... they're part of what scares me about being part of the music/entertainment industry.
I guess you have to look at it a couple ways - yeah, the Beatles and the people who own the Beatles stuff probably don't need any more money, and when using that example for a new copyright law, it seems like a really stupid new legislation. But what if you looked at other copyright holders who never made that much money off their recordings or compositions? Maybe... I don't actually know, but maybe they got a cheque for $2000 in royalties each year or something? (Seriously... I don't know if that number is realistic at all, but I'll stick to it for the sake of argument). That dude would probably really appreciate having the copyright time extended. And... it would be silly to pass a copyright legislation saying "If your stuff makes lots and lots of money then your copyright is over, but if you don't, then your copyright lasts for 45 more years". The people who do good work get rewarded for it; like it or not, this is a
( ... )
Comments 9
lol capitalism. The creative art industries are pretty soulless now.
also I am glad you haven't thrown in the LJ towel. I admittedly don't always reply myself, though I don't always have anything much to say. I do read the entries though, and I like keeping in touch with what people are up to.
Reply
In fact, Emily Dickinson wrote a very interesting poem on publication:
Publication -- is the Auction
Of the Mind of Man --
Poverty -- be justifying
For so foul a thing
Possibly -- but We -- would rather
From Our Garret go
White -- Unto the White Creator --
Than invest -- Our Snow --
Thought belong to Him who gave it --
Then -- to Him Who bear
Its Corporeal illustration -- Sell
The Royal Air --
In the Parcel -- Be the Merchant
Of the Heavenly Grace --
But reduce no Human Spirit
To Disgrace of Price --
Reply
Reply
As for copyright, I don't want any copyright extensions for any of my work. 70 years after my death is fine with me. I'll be dead anyway. =P
I'm quite confused as to the situations with publishers. Some composers assign copyright to publishing companies - others keep it themselves. How do I go about keeping mine if any of my work gets published - any ideas? I'd very much like to own my own ideas... =)
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I guess you have to look at it a couple ways - yeah, the Beatles and the people who own the Beatles stuff probably don't need any more money, and when using that example for a new copyright law, it seems like a really stupid new legislation. But what if you looked at other copyright holders who never made that much money off their recordings or compositions? Maybe... I don't actually know, but maybe they got a cheque for $2000 in royalties each year or something? (Seriously... I don't know if that number is realistic at all, but I'll stick to it for the sake of argument). That dude would probably really appreciate having the copyright time extended. And... it would be silly to pass a copyright legislation saying "If your stuff makes lots and lots of money then your copyright is over, but if you don't, then your copyright lasts for 45 more years". The people who do good work get rewarded for it; like it or not, this is a ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
It's just nice to know that people other than me actually read my posts. =P
Reply
Leave a comment