Tim Almond

From the IHT

“If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late 1950s and 1960s will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years,” said EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, the union’s internal market chief. “These royalties are often their sole pension.”

Well, maybe they should have seen a financial advisor when they were younger and were collecting the cheques. It’s been a known fact that their material was going to run out.

They’re not entitled to a damn thing from copyright. The point of copyright isn’t to give people pensions. It’s to encourage creativity. They recorded these songs with the law as it stood then. Therefore we, as a society, have nothing to gain from extending copyright.

You can make an argument that all recordings from today should get 95 year protection, that you believe that having reviewed the amount of art being produced, that there isn’t enough of it, and that by raising the term, we’ll get more art. Personally, I don’t believe it for a moment. I doubt that anyone hasn’t gone into pop music because they were worried that their rights would disappear when they’re 70.

McCreevy said the new rules should not increase consumer prices because the price of records out of copyright is often the same as — or higher than — that of newly released discs.

That’s just cobblers. I can legally download an MP3 of Jussi Bjorling singing the Flower Song from Carmen. With an original copy of the record, I can legally digitise it and host it and distribute it across the internet. It costs me nothing in royalties. With this copyright change, I would have to pay him or his estate.

Tags: Politics, Music //