Re: UK music copyright to be extended to 100 years

> It looks like they have made thier mind up. Any ideas what we can do about
> it?
> Press release? Visit to parliament?

I think I'll WriteToThem.com my (Conservative) MP. Should I contact a
minister or will my MP do that for me? Let me know if you plan to visit
parliament. I have to travel through London from time to time anyway.

> Here's a draft. It needs improvment as i think its a bit to
> argumentantive.
>                                   -----
>       Society benfits from the public domain.
>
> The copyright deal has always been that society protects a work (such as a
> piece of music) from "pirates" and in return, society gets to make use of
> it after a certain period of time.

I'd advise against the use of "pirates" here. Copyright absolutist
propaganda might call those of us who copy public domain work "pirates,"
but that's an unusual usuage. Copyright doesn't protect works from
"piracy," it restricts works by making some distribution "piracy." I don't
think that we need to challenge use of the word here.

> When the music industry of the 60s produced music, they were happy with
> the arrangments. Now its they turn of society to benfit.

I think that it's important to emphasise that a promise is being broken by
the retroactive bit. Benefits to society, such as written permission not
being required to transfer public domain recordings to MP3/OGG players,
also ought to be spelled out.

> The public domain has benefited society before. Shakespear's works have
> formed the basis of works such as .... If the copyright to his works
> extended that far, these derived works would not have been allowed to be
> made.

It should probably be explained how retroactive copyright extension can
turn into perpetual copyright. The judges in the Eldred case didn't get
it. An example of a work derived from a public domain recording would be
nice, but I can't think of one. Shakespeare is a good example, though.
Kiss Me Kate and West Side Story are adaptations that spring to mind, but
there are a great many. Might Shakespeare's works themselves be derivative
works? According to Wikipedia, Titus Andronicus and Pericles, Prince of
Tyre might have been written by other people and revised by him and The
Tempest contains passages from the Metamorphoses by the Roman poet Ovid.

> The music industry could say that if copyright is extended, they will use
> a portion of the profits to help discover new artists. But this is paltry
> compensation in exchange for what we would be giving up.

I thought that how much they fund a new act depends on the expected
return, not the amount of money that they have available. What will
retroactive copyright extension do for expected returns?

> The small unknown film maker who wants to use "Love me do" as incidental
> music could not do so until 2063. (The current law would allow him to do
> this in 2013.)

I think that film makers can use copyrighted music. I don't know whether
there is compulsory licensing for this or whether the copyright holder can
prevent such use. Perhaps it's too expensive for many.

Tim Ivorson





verified virus free by Usermail.com