I remember reading not too long ago about how in Europe the copyright limit is only 20 years or something while in the US it is 50. So the US are trying to get Europe to extend it to 50 so that they stop getting an influx of imported albums based on works of artists that copyright has expired in Europe but not in the US. Of course most of these artists are dead. I don't like the idea of corporations profiting from someone's lifetime work. If they were passionate about the music and only redistributing it for people to enjoy I wouldn't be so bothered. Having said that though the either way people are getting to hear the music and one complaint the copyright owners have, which is valid, is that once the copyright expires you start to get poor quality recordings into the fray. However the market should accomodate for this as people buy the better quality recordings, assuming there is incentive/backing to remaster the recordings.
well my view is that an artist should continue to recieve royalties for music they create, so long as the song is being used- the reasons you bring up descirbe the situation rather than support your argument. i say this, more to state that your points can be uesed for either side of the argument;
the issue on creative input through inspiration and influence of other artists- well, wouldn't other people in the culture feed off what the artist produces themselves? in that case the influencer should still get compensation, and i'm not talking of influencer of the influencer eg. people get influenced by the Beatles, not by the influencers of the Beatles
in terms of art as commodity, look at it this way; if you were to remove the current royalty system, a lot of the incentive for artists to produce their art for a wider audience would disappear, and the culture would become very segregated as lack of artists willing to put out their work, simply because they don't see a tangible goal to work towards.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
I remember reading not too long ago ...
I remember reading not too long ago about how in Europe the copyright limit is only 20 years or something while in the US it is 50. So the US are trying to get Europe to extend it to 50 so that they stop getting an influx of imported albums based on works of artists that copyright has expired in Europe but not in the US. Of course most of these artists are dead. I don't like the idea of corporations profiting from someone's lifetime work. If they were passionate about the music and only redistributing it for people to enjoy I wouldn't be so bothered. Having said that though the either way people are getting to hear the music and one complaint the copyright owners have, which is valid, is that once the copyright expires you start to get poor quality recordings into the fray. However the market should accomodate for this as people buy the better quality recordings, assuming there is incentive/backing to remaster the recordings.
well my view is that an artist should ...
well my view is that an artist should continue to recieve royalties for music they create, so long as the song is being used- the reasons you bring up descirbe the situation rather than support your argument. i say this, more to state that your points can be uesed for either side of the argument;
the issue on creative input through inspiration and influence of other artists- well, wouldn't other people in the culture feed off what the artist produces themselves? in that case the influencer should still get compensation, and i'm not talking of influencer of the influencer eg. people get influenced by the Beatles, not by the influencers of the Beatles
in terms of art as commodity, look at it this way; if you were to remove the current royalty system, a lot of the incentive for artists to produce their art for a wider audience would disappear, and the culture would become very segregated as lack of artists willing to put out their work, simply because they don't see a tangible goal to work towards.