It's election season in the UK, and the Green Party's policy document has been coming under scrutiny recently. In it is a desire to reduce copyright term to 14 years (not life + 14 years, but 14 years from publication).
Unsurprisingly, this has received a bit of a backlash from various parties.
There's no chance the Green Party will form the next government, so this is all academic, but is this a sensible idea? Are people overreacting?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by melikamp on Friday April 24 2015, @06:21PM
Well of course, and it's not a matter of belief even, but a straightforward interpretation of "non-commercial" and "file-sharing". I think you are incorrect about the recording market being lost. Popular musicians are the same people who routinely get free blowjobs from their fans. They will lose nothing. They generate so much good will, they won't have any trouble convicing their fans to pay them for a chance to see them, hear them, get a recording from them, or even wear some promotional crap on their behalf. All this crap about the "lost profits" is pure myth, and it comes out of the recording industry's coke-addled brains.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Friday April 24 2015, @11:01PM
Plus, musicians could also make money from shows, performances, endorsements, and other appearances. But of course their management agencies (RIAA et. al.) take all of these proceeds away.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:26AM
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:36AM
Indeed - I completely agree.
I just realized that I must have skipped over your second-to-last sentence before I hit the reply button because you already stated everything I did in my post. My apologies...
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday April 25 2015, @09:52PM
Actually, the money's in touring, not record sales. The labels get most of the money for records.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org