Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/12/21/reversion-not-extension.html
…
5 Likes
I mean, duh, of course an extension of copyright after death only benefits the people trying to make money off of the artists’ work rather than the long since dead artists. They’re not going to come back from the dead to start profiting off of their work again.
6 Likes
His point deserves much wider attention. Copyright law as it exists is purely intended to benefit the parasites, not the creators.
1 Like
In my opinion (as if it is interesting and counts for something) copyright should be licensable but not transferable. That means, I can license my copyright to a record company for a certain number of years and/or sales, but I can’t be forced to sell my rights to them forever. This should be law.
I heard an interview with a songwriter whose songs had been bought (for about fifteen thousand dollars, I think) by a label who then failed to produce them, and forbade her from producing her own songs. She was eventually able to buy them back for twice the amount (they originally asked for something like a hundred grand), after her mother had mortgaged her house. This sounds suspiciously like an extortion racket.
2 Likes
I definitely agree that Bryan Adams should hold the copyright for Bryan Adams’ compositions. I would hate for any other entity to be wrongly blamed for them.
1 Like
My opinion of Mr Adams was always middle to mildly positive. This event has put him up several levels of positivity.
You tell ‘em Brian!
I mean sure, although I guess if I wanted to argue against that I would say something like the fact that they can profit for Y amount of years instead of X amount increases the amount of money they are willing to offer for the property, and that money benefits the artist.
For the vast majority of works, that profit has decreasing rate of return. Eventually, rights holders don’t make money from holding the copyright and all it does is prevent works that build on the old, or restrict scholarship in some manner. Mr. Adams rightly suggests that reverting the rights to the artist sooner will divert more dollars to them, and hopefully, as was the original intent of copyright, result in the creation of new works. (c.f. Danny Michel’s recent post about the dearth of income from streaming services.)
I’d also like to see some requirement for large rights-holders to accept some sort of responsibility for preservation of works as well. (Thinking of films degrading, etc.)
I got my first real copyright
wrote it to impress some chicks
Used it 'til my fingers bled
Was in the fall of seventy-six
…
Standin’ in the captiol
You told me it could last forever
Oh, and when the bill’s vote came
I knew that it was now or never
That was the worst day of my life
Oh, yeah
Back in October of ninety-eight
" Bryan Adams to Canadian parliament: extending the term of copyright enriches labels and other intermediaries, not artists"
As far as Parliament is concerned, that’s a feature, not a glitch.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
