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

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

"Thinking about book copyright which (I think) is currently at 75 years after death or first publication. I don't think I would be happy for that to be reduced.

(Assuming I'm right) The Lord of the Rings will go out of copyright in 2048: 41 years time. I strongly suspect that Tolkien will remain quite warm (if not hot) property then. At which point all and sundry would be able to do what they wanted. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing; we've seen the dumb merchandising that came on the back of the Jackson films."

This is a two-edged sword. Copyright on LotR lasting another 41 years seems to me to be absurd. The Tolkien Estate having control of the copyrights limits the flow of dross, but it also limits the flow of good stuff. Why should people whose only relation to the work is a blood relationship to the actual creator have a complete veto over how it is developed? You assume that they will only be producing worthwhile new products, but why should this be so? And why is a flow of dross a bad thing - you can always ignore what you don't like.

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, but how to eliminate the dross? Put the property in the hands of someone who's had nothing to do with the creation of it and is only interested in financial return? Hmm.

This line of argument starts to lead towards some sort of abitration of good taste. "No, you can't publish that book, I think it's rubbish. Here, read this instead." Why not just give wider powers to the BBFC (and set up equivalents for books and so on)?

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

OK, but then you're saying that people are allowed to make good artistic works, but not to profit from them. So the creative types involved with Tolkien's works get nothing, but the non-creative Tolkien estate make money. This is hardly inspiring stuff :-(

Besides, we're really only talking about length of the restriction. I'm saying things should be opened up fairly quickly; you seem to be saying they should be, but, er, not yet, maybe later. Although to be honest the thrust of your arguments seems to be more that control should always stay with the original creator or the people he designates as trustees: any termination of the copyright at any point could be viewed as deleterious.