OOP Material vs Public Domain

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I was too early in my previous conclusion.

This has just been said by the EU Commission in their Work Programme for 2007:

Finally there is the question of the term of protection for sound recording and its role

in fostering a more competitive EU phonogram industry. Currently, the term of

protection for performers and producers is fifty years from the time of a recording.

The question is whether this should be extended possibly to match the USA which

offers 95 years’ protection.

Performers feel that they are entitled to greater protection, at least for their own

lifetimes. The European music industry claims an extension is vital for its

competitiveness. The results of an impact assessment will be available by the end

of 2006. We are consulting all stakeholders during this process with an open mind.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...&guiLanguage=fr

It seems there is some intense lobbying going on, in the perspective of some very successful pop recordings (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis, etc) entering the public domain in Europe.

Read "European music industry" as referring solely to the major companies. An extension will harm a lot of small European firms like Lonehill, Classics, etc. But enable BMG, to take one example, to continue to flog Sam Cooke's "Night beat" - his only classic album - at well over mid price.

MG

[Claude]

Read "European music industry" as referring solely to the major companies. An extension will harm a lot of small European firms like Lonehill, Classics, etc. But enable BMG, to take one example, to continue to flog Sam Cooke's "Night beat" - his only classic album - at well over mid price.

The small public domain labels are economically insignificant compared to the big players. I'm sure the copyright experts of the Commission and most governments haven't even heard of these small labels. These people generally have to deal with many different issues, have no basic technical knowledge (lawyers ) and are out of touch with the reality of the music market. They mostly rely on "expert opinions" from lobby organisations to form their opinion.

I had once participated in a EU conference on copyright levies and DRM, where most people were of the opinion that DRM technologies on music now made it possible to control all copies and made levies on private copying superfluous. They didn't know that there is no such thing as DRM for audio CDs. The Apple representative stated that their iTunes DRM system was absolutely safe, but omitted to say that iTunes allows to burn CDs, thus getting rid of all DRM restrictions. I was disgusted by the lack of knowledge of the government experts and the way lobbyists took advantage of that.

Edited July 4, 2006 by Claude

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Read "European music industry" as referring solely to the major companies. An extension will harm a lot of small European firms like Lonehill, Classics, etc. But enable BMG, to take one example, to continue to flog Sam Cooke's "Night beat" - his only classic album - at well over mid price.

The small public domain labels are economically insignificant compared to the big players. I'm sure the copyright experts of the Commission and most governments haven't even heard of these small labels. These people generally have to deal with many different issues, have no basic technical knowledge (lawyers ) and are out of touch with the reality of the music market. They mostly rely on "expert opinions" from lobby organisations to form their opinion.

I had once participated in a EU conference on copyright levies and DRM, where most people were of the opinion that DRM technologies on music now made it possible to control all copies and made levies on private copying superfluous. They didn't know that there is no such thing as DRM for audio CDs. The Apple representative stated that their iTunes DRM system was absolutely safe, but omitted to say that iTunes allows to burn CDs, thus getting rid of all DRM restrictions. I was disgusted by the lack of knowledge of the government experts and the way lobbyists took advantage of that.

I agree with most of what you're saying, Claude, (though I don't know what DRM means) having done some of that stuff myself.

However, when you talk of economic significance, it's too easy to equate that to size. Small labels can be economically significant in their local areas. The EC has a Regional Directorate which could listen to the independents, did they but know it.

MG

[Claude]

DRM is "Digital rights management", i.e. technical functions used to control copying.

There is no working DRM technology for CDs currently, only copy-preventing technologies. The only real attempt at DRM for CDs was Sony's disasterous rootkit system which had to infect computers in order to work.

Currently the electronics industry in Europe has to pay copyright levies on their devices which can be used to copy music (including MP3 players), to compensate the composers and musicicians for (legit) private copying. Of course they don't like that and are pushing towards DRM solutions which would make the users pay for every copy and thus make copyright levies superfluous.

On that conference, Apple tried to present their iTunes DRM as safe, but it isn't because in order to be acceptable by the consumers they have to allow them to burn CDs, which removes all copying limitations, as CDs are DRM-free by nature unless you install rootkits on the user's PCs. That's obvious to anyone with basic computer knowledge, but the copyright experts I spoke to were convinced by Apple's presentation.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

DRM is "Digital rights management", i.e. technical functions used to control copying.

There is no working DRM technology for CDs currently, only copy-preventing technologies. The only real attempt at DRM for CDs was Sony's disasterous rootkit system which had to infect computers in order to work.

Currently the electronics industry in Europe has to pay copyright levies on their devices which can be used to copy music (including MP3 players), to compensate the composers and musicicians for (legit) private copying. Of course they don't like that and are pushing towards DRM solutions which would make the users pay for every copy and thus make copyright levies superfluous.

On that conference, Apple tried to present their iTunes DRM as safe, but it isn't because in order to be acceptable by the consumers they have to allow them to burn CDs, which removes all copying limitations, as CDs are DRM-free by nature unless you install rootkits on the user's PCs. That's obvious to anyone with basic computer knowledge, but the copyright experts I spoke to were convinced by Apple's presentation.

Thanks Claude

MG

[medjuck]

I guess you mean the current copyright duration on sound recordings, which is 70 years from the date of performance (50 years in Europe).

That is the copyright on the recorded performance. The copyrght on compositions or lyrics lasts 70 years after the death of the composer/author (same in Europe).

Are you sure? That would mean that anything recorded before 1936 was now pd.

I'm quite sure he's sure, because that's the way it is!

I thought it was now 95 years as a result Disney's lobbying so that first Mickey Mouse cartoon wouldn't enter the public domain.