- + Tumsehin voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Tumsehin voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Support.Xfx voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kakedijaan voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Dtrfuyijygfcdtgyhu joined Debatewise
- + Fjikjijfijeiw voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Tumsehin voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Soominchoi voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Support.Xfx voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Soominchoi voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Kakedijaan voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Dtrfuyijygfcdtgyhu voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Support.Xfx voted on the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Fjikjijfijeiw joined Debatewise
- + Soominchoi voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Tumsehin joined Debatewise
- + Kakedijaan voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Soominchoi voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Orko joined Debatewise
- + Kakedijaan voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Tumsehin voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Kakedijaan voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Kakedijaan joined Debatewise
- + Tumsehin voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ON SOUND RECORDINGS FROM 50 YEARS WILL PREDOMINANTLY BENEFIT MUSIC COMPANIES AND WORK AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS
The European Parliament has recently voted on a proposal that would extend the period of copyright protection for performers and record producers from 50 years to 70 years. This goes someway to address the imbalance between performers and authors, who have copyright protection up to 70 years after their death. However this is more likely to benefit music companies more that consumers due to the fact they will be able to charge higher prices, and stifle creativity, therefore reducing the quality of new music available to the consumer.
Extending the period of copyright protection on sound recordings from 50 years will predominantly benefit music companies and work against the interests of consumers
Yes, because... Potentially stifles creativity
If the copyright period is extended, the right to block anybody else from using samples of a song recorded 40-50 years ago obviously becomes longer. However 'today’s music often makes use of samples of older material and many would argue that it is all the richer for it. Whilst the creators of the earlier records are entitled to fair reward for their efforts, too tight a hold on records that have long since lost most of their commercial value can stifle instead of encourage creativity.[1] If this happened, the obvious losers would be the consumer as the quality and range of music available to them would have drastically decreased.
Incorporation of older material is done with permission of the copyright holder, since there is little material from 50 years ago that is actually appealing to contemporary mixers. changing the time frame to 70 years will not affect this.
Vote on this point: Potentially stifles creativity
See history of changes to this point
Extending the period of copyright protection on sound recordings from 50 years will predominantly benefit music companies and work against the interests of consumers
Yes, because... WIll cost the consumer more money
It is estimated that the extension of copyright laws would benefit the record industry to the tune of up to € 843 million.[1] The industry claims that the consumer will not have to pay more but this money has got to come from somewhere, it and it is likely the consumer will have to carry the can through higher prices.
See history of changes to this point
Extending the period of copyright protection on sound recordings from 50 years will predominantly benefit music companies and work against the interests of consumers
No, because... It is the performer more than the consumer who is affected
There is no reason why said performers cannot save for retirement like the rest of us. If they're not making enough money on royalties, they should do whatever any underpaid person does in any other field: try harder, try different income avenues (more live performances for example), or move to a different field.
The extension of these copyrights in all reality do not affect consumers that much because they stillhave to pay for the music regardless. There is the argument that once copyright has expired consumers will legally be able to download the music for free and fileshare it etc, but that would happen regardless of copyright expiring or not. This proposal would affect small time performers and session musicians who rely on the royalties for their income. As most performers tend to be at their peak in their twenties, the royalties would be running out at a vital stage in their life when they would really depend on the royalties.
Vote on this point: It is the performer more than the consumer who is affected
See history of changes to this point
Extending the period of copyright protection on sound recordings from 50 years will predominantly benefit music companies and work against the interests of consumers
No, because... The 'use it or lose it' clause would benefit consumers
The proposals contain a variety of measures that help performers such as the use it or lose it clause. This has to be included in the contracts linking performers to their record companies will allow performers to get their rights back if the record producer does not market the sound recording during the extended period. In this way the performer will be able to either find another record producer willing to sell his music or do it himself[1] which is easily done via the internet. This means that the consumer is in fact given more choice as record labels are unable to subdue an artist getting their work heard if they no longer deem it to be commercially viable.
Extending the period of copyright protection on sound recordings from 50 years will predominantly benefit music companies and work against the interests of consumers
No, because... Once copyright has expired, anybody can make money out of the music
The fact that copyright expires does not take away all venues of profit from a creation. Live performances are always favored by people who enjoy an artist's work; so do people often prefer to buy "original" even when are alternatives. For example, a lot of "pirated" songs are actually used as previews for people who lated buy the music after they liked what they heard.
The consumer, therefore, benefits more from the ability to choose than from the confidence in the "officialness" of some release. The consumer also favors from the incentive to the performer to keep his work on live performance etc, instead of resting on the laurels of his early work, as successful as it might have initially been.
Once the copyright has expired anybody can distribute the music in whatever way they seem fit. This means that any person could make a greatest hits collection, or include the song in a compilation and the performer would make no money from it whatsoever. The consumer would benefit from a greater length of copyright as they would be confident that the music they are buying is an official release from their favourite artist.
Vote on this point: Once copyright has expired, anybody can make money out of the music
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: Extending the period of copyright protection on sound recordings from 50 years will predominantly benefit music companies and work against the interests of consumers
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. Potentially stifles creativity
If the copyright period is extended, the right to block anybody else from using samples of a song recorded 40-50 years ago obviously becomes longer. However 'today’s music often makes use of samples of older material and many would argue that it is all the richer for it. Whilst the creators of the earlier records are entitled to fair reward for their efforts, too tight a hold on records that have long since lost most of their commercial value can stifle instead of encourage creativity.[1] If this happened, the obvious losers would be the consumer as the quality and range of music available to them would have drastically decreased.
Incorporation of older material is done with permission of the copyright holder, since there is little material from 50 years ago that is actually appealing to contemporary mixers. changing the time frame to 70 years will not affect this.
I really agree with this point, record companies are too powerful and prevent new talent from emerging
Point 2. WIll cost the consumer more money
It is estimated that the extension of copyright laws would benefit the record industry to the tune of up to € 843 million.[1] The industry claims that the consumer will not have to pay more but this money has got to come from somewhere, it and it is likely the consumer will have to carry the can through higher prices.
Point 1. It is the performer more than the consumer who is affected
The extension of these copyrights in all reality do not affect consumers that much because they stillhave to pay for the music regardless. There is the argument that once copyright has expired consumers will legally be able to download the music for free and fileshare it etc, but that would happen regardless of copyright expiring or not. This proposal would affect small time performers and session musicians who rely on the royalties for their income. As most performers tend to be at their peak in their twenties, the royalties would be running out at a vital stage in their life when they would really depend on the royalties.
There is no reason why said performers cannot save for retirement like the rest of us. If they're not making enough money on royalties, they should do whatever any underpaid person does in any other field: try harder, try different income avenues (more live performances for example), or move to a different field.
Point 2. The 'use it or lose it' clause would benefit consumers
The proposals contain a variety of measures that help performers such as the use it or lose it clause. This has to be included in the contracts linking performers to their record companies will allow performers to get their rights back if the record producer does not market the sound recording during the extended period. In this way the performer will be able to either find another record producer willing to sell his music or do it himself[1] which is easily done via the internet. This means that the consumer is in fact given more choice as record labels are unable to subdue an artist getting their work heard if they no longer deem it to be commercially viable.
Point 3. Once copyright has expired, anybody can make money out of the music
Once the copyright has expired anybody can distribute the music in whatever way they seem fit. This means that any person could make a greatest hits collection, or include the song in a compilation and the performer would make no money from it whatsoever. The consumer would benefit from a greater length of copyright as they would be confident that the music they are buying is an official release from their favourite artist.
The fact that copyright expires does not take away all venues of profit from a creation. Live performances are always favored by people who enjoy an artist's work; so do people often prefer to buy "original" even when are alternatives. For example, a lot of "pirated" songs are actually used as previews for people who lated buy the music after they liked what they heard.
The consumer, therefore, benefits more from the ability to choose than from the confidence in the "officialness" of some release. The consumer also favors from the incentive to the performer to keep his work on live performance etc, instead of resting on the laurels of his early work, as successful as it might have initially been.