Copyright Protection Extended By 20 Years

EU?Regulators are set to give the music industry a boost by extending copyright protection by 20 years. Recordings will now be under copyright for 70 years, making it illegal for anyone to distribute them without permission. The EU council will rubber-stamp the changes on Monday, meaning member states will be required to write them into law within two years.

Recordings that were due to fall out of copyright protection over the next month, meaning anyone can package and resell the material, include Elvis Presley’s Little Sister and Shirley Bassey’s Reach for the Stars. The changes have been hailed as a victory for rights holders, who are desperate to protect their existing revenue streams in the face of intense pressure from illegal file-sharing. Ian De Freitas, an intellectual property partner at City law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner, said: “This is the end of a long campaign for change by the music industry. “It is another victory for IP rights holders in what has been a very good year for them coming on the back of court decisions requiring internet service providers to block access to websites distributing infringing content and the failure of the challenge to the Digital Economy Act.” 

Source: ElvisMatters / Updated: Sep 8, 2011 
Elvis Presley on: eBay, iTunes, Amazon, Sheetmusic

Reactions

Bestoftherest8301 (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 13, 2011report abuse
Why don't performing artists invest some of their royalties into a pension plan (like the rest of us have to with our incomes), then we won't have to keep paying them past their normal retirement date.If the 'performer' starts at 15 years of age plus another 50, that makes normal retirement age. - so the 50 years is about right. If a plumber fits a new toilet, you don't pay him 10p everytime you flush it for 70 years! 50 years is more than generous, if you agree with the principal of paying royalties.
MickeyN (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 12, 2011report abuse
I posted this on an earlier thread (about EPE and German copyright). Think it is relevant to this discussion also.

I do get an uncomfortable feeling every time one of these stories comes out that there are people and companies that are making megabucks out of Elvis when they have done next to nothing to earn it (and sadly I include Priscilla in that). I realise that EPE needs to make some money to maintain Graceland, BUT, why should others who sell Elvis stuff, meeting the fans needs and wants, be prevented by a battery of lawyers. If every unlicensed trader sold all their stuff, there would still be enough made by EPE. It can't be a matter of quality control - look at the rubber ducks and Mr Potato Heads!

A few years ago, Elvis singles were re-released one per week in the UK. They all did quite well in the charts; they would all have done better if the available video footage had been released to accompany the singles; but of course the videos were owned by one mob and the music by another so they did not work together. RESULT - we had an Elvis impersonator miming to "One Night" on "Top of the Pops" and a missed opportunity to promote the King to a whole new audience.

The one and only person in this whole sorry mess who added real value was Elvis. He seems to be the one person who stands above the greed and venality. He sang his songs, he entertained (yes, even with the films and songs that my fellow commentators love to moan about), he lived his life and did harm only to himself. That is why he is one of the most famous people of the 20th Century - known from India to Indiana by his first name. So who is benefitting financially 34 years after his death - and why?
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 12, 2011report abuse
jack, I couldn't agree more with Natha ! But I also see your point . I can understand you're getting irritated by the (regularly) negative comments on some periods and/or songs of our man by some members. But,just like Natha wrote, I know that the people you are referring to (without mentionning their names, and that's well done) are, in spite of the factyou may think otherwise, are unquestionable loyal fans. Like I wrote already in a previous posting : they also write regularly in a positve way on things, though I have to agree the "negative" wins from the "positive", but once again, they love Elvis as much as we all do. Take care. Always El.
Natha (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 12, 2011report abuse
Jack, I fully agree with you. I also sense that in the last years there seems to be quite repeatedly some focus on negative sides. Things we all know. Some remarks seem to underline the general crooked idea of 'Elvis'. The tone and the constant repetition of the remarks may indeed suggest that they are not such a loyal fan after all. Luckily I know better, though the casual visitor/reader might get that feeling. Yet, I think it is man's nature to hold on to negative things stronger. Negative things are always discussed more than the wonderful things. They never seem to bore people. Fortunately I am not. Elvis gives me so much enjoyment that I don't feel the urge to focus on the negative things. As humans we all have shortcomings I don't look for a whip to make it clear. Anyway, you are so right about the fans of others. They adamently go against that. Well maybe in about 30 years they are also critical. As I wrote it is a weakness in man's nature.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 11, 2011report abuse
Right TCB1974 ! Same question I'm asking : jack, what precisely is your point ? Just trying to understand what you mean exactly. Always El.
TCB1974 (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 11, 2011report abuse
Not sure what you are trying to achieve Jack. Everyone on this site will agree that Elvis was the greatest performer that ever walked the surface of this planet, but he was not perfect neither the son of God. Elvis would be the first to agree to this. It is also widely known that Elvis himself was frustrated with the movies and material provided to him in the mid-60s, and he was for this reason very excited about the NBC TV Special and returning to live performances. Again, what is your point?
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 11, 2011report abuse
Hi Marty, in all honesty, apart from the "wife and husband"-situation concerning "post-royalties" after a decease, not all "relatives" should benefit, per example grand-childeren, etc... so there I can absolutely agree with you.Have to agree with Natha about the "legacy not being served by quick buck releases" , but on the other hand you have a point that the excisting period of 50 years should do. Half a century is already a (very) long time indeed. Apperently the extension seems to be a knife cutting both ways. And to end, amen to that : Long Live The King ( = Always El.)
TCB1974 (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 11, 2011report abuse
It is questionable if this serves anything for the fans. If the record companies would no longer have exclusive rights on the widely available recordings, they would be forced to come up with fantastically packaged, great sounding and maybe even new material. If they keep the exclusive rights on the songs, they can continue bringing out another standard 'remember how great he was' compilation.
marty (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 11, 2011report abuse
Benny, I sympathise with your argument about the wife or husband still receiving loyalties after their other half is gone. It is debatable and different people will have different opinions. But my argument is mainly for the copyright protection extended by 20 years. How many wives/husbands will still be alive to benefit from this extension? Isn't 50 years enough? Lawmakers should address first & foremost the public interest and in general the copyright laws as they stand today are tailored to suit the needs of the entertainment industry and not the people. That’s what frustrates me.
Natha (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 11, 2011report abuse
About the copyright and loyalties I think that Benny Scott is right as to the benefit to the family members. In regard to the companies I have my doubt. Let's consider Elvis only. For the last 30 years RCA &z had ample chances to give us fans the materials we have asked for for so many years. They could easily have benefitted to the extreme and driven out all bootlegs. But what did they do? The did very little. Hence I like to buy the bootlegs whenever they produce something (And yes they have profit, but so does everyone being rewarded for the work they have done). The audience recordings are bootleg by definition. The other materials were at hand any time! Yet I have to agree that the Elvis Legacy is not served by the cheap quick-buck copy paste work that has flooded the market recently. But that will be the fate of the other artists too, IF they are still remembered after so many years. And lets face it, most of them are already on cheap cd compilations or they are already ignored or in oblivion.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
It's your good right to feel the way you do about excluding the releatives being paid copyright after the death of an artist, composer or writer . So I'm not talking about "big companies" here. It's the part "releatives" that I want to discuss. I'm a singer songwriter myself. I retired a while ago but I'm still being paid copyright. If I should die tomorrow, my wife will be paid royalties after MY death for the rest of HER life. That's what is foreseen in the reglementation of the association SABAM which pays the copyright here in Belgium . As far as I know this is the common rule in many countries, if you like it or not . Hope you have nothing against this ? Can cope with your point of view about the "big companies" though. Always El.
marty (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
Elvis had a fortune that he left to his daughter. She shouldn't complain...
The copyright is a different thing. Imagine if the inventor of the Alphabet had a copyright or patent & you had to pay something to his ancestors (or the copyright holders) every time you wrote a word! Or the inventor of the wheel & other things we take for granted… We have to have a more open view to this issue. The copyright laws are relatively recent & were put in place to protect the artists (poets, writers, musicians etc) so they could make a living from their art & that would benefit the general public. That was the purpose of the law. What is the benefit to the general public if some big companies make money from a dead artist for longer?
Jimmy Boy (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
Hmmm.... Just in time to save any loss in royalties from the Fab Four's back catalogue :-)
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
Marty: 1) what should be done with the money still coming in and payed by radiostations, tv-stations, record sales , etc. (call it royalties, or copyricht ot whatever you want) if, according to your point of view, even releatives should be excluded ?
2. When both my parents passed away I, being their only child, I had, by law, the benfit of the heritage. What did I do to merit this income ? Nothing !!! Income from copyright and/or royalties is to be considered as "heritage", and in the music business this is the international rule. Always El.
marty (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
My view (if it matters to anyone):
Point 1: I do not care enough for the other artists mentioned here to comment. I do care for music in general though.
Point 2: Since Elvis died no one really should benefit financially from his music & legacy and that includes his relatives.
Point 3: Just a reminder that his relatives have sold EPE & Elvis himself sold the rights to most of the music he recorded.
Point 4: Big corporations that sometimes have no involvement (or respect) in music making are earning lots of money.
Point 5: These companies are mostly benefiting from the copyright extension. How many artists are alive 70 years after they recorded or wrote their songs? Why should their relatives get richer? Did they produce anything?
Point 6: How many of you still get paid for work you did many years ago?
Point 7: Those releasing out of copyright material are also in it to make money from someone else's work!
The end on a positive note: Long live the King
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
C'mon jack, be reasonable and don't exaggerate . You probably mean well, but you seem to see this as a cruisade. It's not because some fans mention the fact that Elvis recorded some less good material ( which, in all honesty, is true, but I don't think he's personally to blame for it, he signed contracts for movies and had to honour these contracts in spite of, in some cases, several less good songs) they are not loyal fans. I noticed that the same fans express a possitive comment when it comes to the good stuff. If they were not true fans they wouldn't do this, don't you think so ?
Take care. Always El.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
dgirl, i can understand your reaction jack very often mentioning the Fab Four and MJ in his postings. Comparing different artists almost always leads to "disputes" and has no sence IMHO. I think Oldscudder really has a point here with his reaction. On the other hand I have to admit that jack defends our man, so to me he is also a real Elvis-fan. His style of writing is a bit harsh, but probably will be smoother in a couple of years. let's concentrate on our man and his music as much as possible, after all, we all should be pulling the same rope ! As for the copyright protection extended to 70 years : all countries have 2 years time to write them into law, so I'm really curious what still will be released during these to years. Have a nice weekend all of you . Always El.
Leibermann (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
Too bad that the market is now flooded with 'copyrights free' budget CDs. All over, in lots of countries...and aét cheap prices, too. Is that what EPE Graceland Inc. meant re. keeping Elvis' image intact and premium ...?
Natha (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 10, 2011report abuse
TheOldScudder, what a wonderful reaction! I think Jack409 tried, in his own way, to point out that the whole issue here came to be discussed as it almost affects the European artists involved and that this aspect was more instrumental to getting this issue fixed rather than really caring about the great artists of the fifties. I think Jamies remarks are also true. I sense that RCA and the later custodians of the Elvis Legacy never got a real idea of how to treat this.
Jamie (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
Hello, I'm quite unhappy that BMG took so long to supply the demand for cheap public domain Elvis product. By the time they issued their 'The Real Elvis' budget compilations, scores of shoddy releases with naff covers and bizarre track selections had flooded the market. It doesn't make the King look very regal any more than the old Camden releases did. If classics like 'Little Sister' remain inaccessible to the entrepeneurial manufacturers of crummy Elvis CD's I say it's a good thing. He's not Little Jimmy Osmond, he's Elvis Presley for Pete's sake.
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
One more note here. A magazine like Elvis Man & His Music gives their reviews on all Elvis products, and in mostly every issue there is a negative review on something. Are you saying the publishers of an all Elvis magazine are anti-Elvis and closet fans of whoever because of this? Do u see how ridiculous that statement is? Move on now!
snowplow floater (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
To borrow a quote from my favourite movie, "Shake hands and come out fighting". The passion that Elvis generates here, never ceases to amaze me. Well done everybody, even though i was slightly peeved by the dissing of the lovely folk ballad, "Wild in the Country". It was on the first album, i ever bought, Elvis' 40 Greatest hits with pink vinyl. What a great compilation that one is. Well it looks there will be no more cheapie public domain issues thanks to the Beatles and their lawyers, looks like we need those Camden reissues, after all. Long Live The King!!
theoldscudder (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
Jack409. You are entitled to your opinion as we all are. However they would carry more weight if you excluded Beatles & MJ. Why not make your point on the merits rather than downgrade artists that have noting to do with Elvis. I believe Elvis & the Beatles will both live on even if all other rock artist's are forgotten. You are probably young & should be given a pass. In the future you may want to consider this advice.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
Jack - you know of nothing. I have never been on a Beatles website EVER! Furthermore I would match my Elvis collection against yours anyday from SUN 209 on up. True, I dont buy the new stuff much like the latest FTD or Legacy Series or Camden CD releases. Why should I when I dont want or need the material? If you attribute that to not keeping Elvis' legacy alive, well I cant agree.
Steve V (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
I quite like his rants about The Beatles & MJ on practically everything he posts. They always make me laugh!
dgirl (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
Benny just ignore a certain member, I do. He is so obsessed with The Beatles & MJ he is probably the closet fan. By the way I am not a closet fan of The Beatles, I am a fan, just as I am a fan of 50 other artists(not MJ tho). Is that not allowed? I am allowed to state any option on anything whether it is pro Elvis or not, this is a democracy. If someone did a better version of a song, I am allowed to say that. By the way, one of the reasons Elvis fans get a bad rep is because certain fans cannot discuss, debate or reason. I know plenty of Beatles fans who put down Paul for what he did in 1970 and John & Yoko for their antics. This man has no idea what he is talking about ,most probably because he wasnt even born yet when a lot of these topics are discussed,espeically the record releases of the time.
benny scott (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
This is an Elvis Presley-site, or am I wrong ? Always El.
mark wilson (profilecontact) wrote on Sep 9, 2011report abuse
Very interesting however, I doubt very much it its retroactive on material already entered in the Public Domain area. Something thats already in public ownership cannot be reversed. Since the law cannot come into effect until each member state of the EU have ratified the alw in their own territory, it can take a few years forthis process, so officially the law wont start until 2013/14. So recording years upto say 1962/63 will remain in the public arena forever.

Misc.: 10 most recent news items

09/08/2016

Recently Added Shop Items