Following the US down the slippery slope to making copyright last for ever, the European Commission has proposed extending the performer’s rights from the current 50 years to 95 years.
The Gower Report that was commissioned by the British Government is against such extensions, despite calls from aging rockers such as Cliff Richard, U2 and the Who singer Roger Daltrey who stand to benefit from the changes.
There are a few musicians, who generally have made more than enough from the creations to live out their days in comfort, that still have the potential to sell commercial quantities of their tracks. The vast majority of old recordings are of interest to small numbers of researchers or fans.
Charlie McCreevy, the EU’s internal market commissioner, who is behind the proposal claims that “I have not seen or heard a convincing reason why a composer of music should benefit from a term of copyright that extends to the composer’s life and 70 years beyond, while the performer should enjoy 50 years, often not even covering his lifetime.”
I would humbly suggest cutting copyright terms for composers as well as creators.
Why should a pensioner who bought a single in the fifties, have to pay to download a new copy?
In “About a Boy”(2002), Hugh Grant makes a very good case for not allowing people to make money indefinately from creations made by parents. – It leads to laziness, for a start.
One justification for copyright is to reward creativity as an incentive for more creativity.
[...] European call for copyright extension for performers: (John Carroll), (The IP Factor), (Spicy IP), (Public Knowledge), (IPR-Helpdesk), (Techdirt), [...]