Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday April 24 2015, @02:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the useful-progress dept.

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?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by melikamp on Friday April 24 2015, @06:21PM

    by melikamp (1886) on Friday April 24 2015, @06:21PM (#174786) Journal

    The problem here is that at least 30% of people here (numbers pulled straight out of my ass) believe that sharing music, movies, freely over the net constitutes non-commercial file sharing.

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Friday April 24 2015, @11:01PM

    by hash14 (1102) on Friday April 24 2015, @11:01PM (#174877)

    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

      by melikamp (1886) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:26AM (#174899) Journal
      Absolutely true, but to stress my point about digital music files in particular: there is NO WAY a popular musician won't be able to convince her fans to pay for files through her website and/or official retailer. Even I would do it.
      • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:36AM

        by hash14 (1102) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:36AM (#174900)

        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

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday April 25 2015, @09:52PM (#175178) Homepage Journal

      Actually, the money's in touring, not record sales. The labels get most of the money for records.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org