Intellectual prorpety and copyright

[king_pellinor]

Splitting this off from LadyofAstolat's journal, as it;'s not really on topic there and she said she didn't want to get into it too much:

I see that there's a motion (presumably an Early-Day Motion) in Parliament which says:

"This House notes that 50 years ago Lonnie Donegan's Cumberland Gap was No. 1 in the charts for five weeks; is concerned that due to the present law governing payments for use of audio recordings this track will go out of copyright at the end of 2007 and that the family of Lonnie Donegan, who would have been 76 on 29 April, and the other performers will no longer receive any royalties, nor have any say in how this recording is used".

My response would be:

"I note that 50 years ago Lonnie Donegan's Cumberland Gap was No. 1 in the charts for five weeks; I am concerned that due to the present law governing payments for use of audio recordings this track will not go out of copyright until the end of 2007 and so even now the general public is unable to sing this song freely without getting permission, notwithstanding that Donegan himself is actually dead."

Let songs go into the public domain. If they're only sung by people at parties, or played as soundtracks to what are effectively historical documentaries, then they're not commercial any more. Stop treating them as if they are!

Do you know how many songs can't be sung freely because Cliff Richard owns the copyright? Neither do I, because they're dead ducks commercially and so no-one's paying attention any more!

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I too have had to write stuff I don't want to write, don't enjoy writing, and don't find particularly interesting, for someone else's benefit. I just don't think it's so uniquely painful (or valuable) that 50 years later the writer still deserves compensation!

I bow to your knowledge on the emergence of copyright, but I don't see anything there to change my view of the current situation.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

It's possible to argue that copyright emerges from a situation related to the nature of the technology used to disseminate the work. I think that despite the technological changes related to the internet it's still valid for a writer and their publisher to agree terms for the distribution of their work as a marketable product which will protect the author's interest for a set period of time.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I'm happy to agree to a 'set period of time'. I just think 75 years is a bit silly, and that even 50 years is a bit cheeky really.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Although (below) I guessed at a particular period of copyright as most fair, or perhaps better least unfair, it does seem to me that one has to positively make an argument as to why something should remain in copyright after the author's death.

However my feeling is that it doesn't take much in the way of special pleading for copyright not to expire during the life of the author - at least if vested in the author.