[Gllug] Some good news - copyright on sound recordings not to be extended

[Jason Clifford]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Martin A. Brooks wrote:

> > Exactly my impression. Lots of news services are acting as if this is a
> > huge problem and oh-so-terrible, but, um, if you want to be paid after
> > expiry, try *doing some work in the half-century-plus since
> > 1955*. Sheesh.
> 
> Personally I think copyright should be valid until the death/dissolution 
> of the holder.

It is and then a further 70 years but only for the actual author or other 
proper copyright holder.

This discussion is about a stupid copyright on recordings/broadcasts which 
Cliff and his greedy mates want to extend from an excessive 50 years to 95 
years.

It's interesting to note that the broadcasters, who are the ones getting 
to spin this, would be the main beneficiaries of an extention as they are 
the ones who hold large bodies of such material - remember that copyright 
in a recording arises each time they make a programme.

> > Now all we have to do is get other copyright terms reduced similarly.
> 
> It seems that you think this is a huge problem and oh-so-terrible.  Why 
> is that?

A more appropriate question, to my mind, is why does anyone need copyright 
to last 70 years after the death of the author?

Why do we need perpetual copyright on selected materials just because the 
proceeds go to a hospital that is supposed to be NHS funded?

Jason Clifford
-- 
UKFSN.ORG			Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net
http://www.ukfsn.org/		  up to 8Mb ADSL Broadband from just £14.98
http://www.linuxadsl.co.uk/		ADSL routers from just £21.98

-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug