Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ~XIX~
I disagree... I'm sitting on tunes up to a decade old, and they are not limited by their style, and they haven't been made commercially available. There is a massive difference between 5 years from completion to 70 years after death. The 70 years after death is like a 'just in case' clause... if some guy dies at 30 surely his family should be able to get some benefit from his work if it is commercially successful after his death? If not I feel you're really opening the floodgates to some very seedy and unfair business practices.
Anyway, there are plenty of examples of music making far more money a number of years after release. I can think of two off the top of my head straight away... Clash - Should I Stay Or Should I Go... David Bowie - Space Oddity. Both of these examples are more than 5 years too... the Bowie tune was 6, the Clash one was something like 16.
Dunno where u quoted that from TG, but it is bollocks  |
I aggree to a point. The Pirate Party platform TG quoted is more like a list of grievances than actual demands, but if they only accomplish part of their goal then it's at least a step in the right direction. Copyright terms shouldn't be shortened to just 5 years in my opinion. And you're right, if an artist should meet an early demise then his copyrights should last for a little while longer. However, if copyright was implimented as it originally was, with a fixed term of 14-28 years, that would leave
plenty of time for musicians to cash in on their work, even those who die young. Think about it: fads only last a few years, and the classics rarely last more than 30. After that how much profit can you expect to get out of such old music? I know the rock dream is to record a few hits and retire young, but at some point these people need to grow up, stop living off of royalties and produce some more content, or get a square job.