From: "Brad" <barnoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <zeppelin@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Aging rockers set to lose copyrights (Eventual Zeppelin
Content)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:03:48 +1100
Seemed to be ok for the likes of the Stones to make money off songs they
didn't write, and Zep to plagiarise blues classics and make money from
them.
Is there a difference here? Or am I missing something?
There is no doubt that some artists have a legitimate case to make. I just
think that the Stones have a hide and if Page/Plant also whinge about it
then Page should go and have a relisten to some of his chops, and Plant
should have a listen to some of his lyrics.
Don't forget the price that George Harrison paid for My Sweet Lord sounding
like the Chiffons. Some bands have been lucky to not be taken to the
cleaners over their blatant ripping off of other songs.
Sacrilege I know but there you have it.
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owners-zeppelin@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owners-zeppelin@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Oner Ozaylak
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2006 7:40 PM
To: zeppelin@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Aging rockers set to lose copyrights (Eventual Zeppelin
Content)
<"I don't think anyone involved in music's creation can understand
how, after a certain amount of time, it stops being yours and starts
being everyone else's," he (David Arnold) told Reuters.>
i agree with him. ending rights after 50 years is not fair.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JR Sroufe <jr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Dec 2, 2006 5:38 AM
Subject: Aging rockers set to lose copyrights (Eventual Zeppelin
Content): zeppelin@xxxxxxxx
LONDON, England (Reuters) --
When British finance minister Gordon Brown stands up to make his pre-
budget speech next week, aging rockers Cliff Richard, The Beatles and
The Rolling Stones might do well to tune in. Not normally the stuff
of rock'n'roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music
industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to
95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free
for all to use.
The government commissioned Andrew Gowers to review all areas of
intellectual property law, including challenges thrown up by the
consumption of music and film over the Internet, and he is seen as
unlikely to recommend a copyright extension.
His conclusions are expected to be published next week as part of the
chancellor's annual pre-budget report.
Official sources say the Labour government appears more swayed by the
right of consumers to access music cheaply, or, if it is 50 years
old, essentially for free, than by old performers seeking protection.
Commentators also point out that the 50-year sound recording cover
is standard in most European countries, and Britain would be unlikely
to want to stand alone by extending it.
Richard has led the way in highlighting the issue, with his first hit
"Move It!," from 1958, perilously close to the cut off point for
copyright protection.
Protection for artists
More significantly for record labels who do a lucrative trade in
remastering and repackaging old hits, The Beatles catalogue could be
up for grabs from 2012 and 2013, including early hits like "Love Me
Do" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand."
Then come The Shadows and The Rolling Stones, to name but a few. In
2005, Elvis Presley's record label re-released his British No. 1 hits
over consecutive weeks to cash in ahead of the deadline.
David Arnold, who composed the scores for four James Bond movies,
argues that the 50-year copyright limit discriminates against
performers and record companies.
"I don't think anyone involved in music's creation can understand
how, after a certain amount of time, it stops being yours and starts
being everyone else's," he told Reuters.
"We need to do the groundwork so there is an element of protection
for artists and record companies who take a risk with an artist," he
added. "That's if we value the entertainment industry and value music
in our society."
Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for
singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters
enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years.
In the United States, copyright protection is 95 years.
Industry bodies like the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) argue
that the failure to extend protection on old hits will jeopardize
investment in future talent.
Emma Pike, chief executive of the British Music Rights group, sides
with the BPI, but says the Gowers Review raises broader issues for
music and film in the 21st century.
"Sales of legitimate music downloads are growing exponentially ...
but the overall picture globally is still one of decline," she said.
"There is a statistic that 80 percent (of Internet music download
traffic) is illegal and 20 percent legal, so we have an enormous
amount of work to do and the music industry simply can't do it on its
own."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/01/uk.copyright.reut/index.html