Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This seems a really silly decision to me.
that they don't really need the money though? I'm not sure what I think of this. Probably the wrong decision, but the really rich musicians like Cliff Richard shouldn't care.
the money, but he should still have the right to profit from HIS work.
I remember reading the argument for this decision a couple of years back - but right now all I can think is how they've basically said "Sorry gramps, WE own your songs now!"
Actually now that I think about it, a lot of what he makes from his music probably goes to charity. That won't happen when his copyright runs out. Less wealthy musicians will profit from it, and lead a rock n roll lifestyle, with no thought to the starving kids.
Yeah, this is bad.
His is probably a more valid point.
The composer gets royalties until years after their death as far as I can see from reading that? It's the performers who are being shafted, i.e. cover artists or band members who didn't contribute to the song writing.
Whether this is fair or not is another matter.
What do you mean?
since ANYONE will be able to publish the songs...
But can't someone connected to Cliff Richard, or any famous artist for that matter, buy the copyright on his behalf, so to speak?
Or can anyone use the recordings at any given time, with no new copyright sold?
Once copyright is done it's done.
the sound recording, not the publishing/composition - although it sounds a little confused, especially with the beatles photo caption.
cliff will naturally be pissed, because he didn't write 'move it', or probably any of his early songs... or maybe any at all.