Is Gordon Brown right ro reject calls for copyright extension?

Question

When Chancellor Gordon Brown stands up to make his pre-budget speech next week, ageing rockers Cliff Richard, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones might do well to tune in.

Not normally the stuff of rock'n'roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free for all to use.

Answer 1

Yeah, I think so. It's fine to protect intellectual property for a period of time, but after that? You know that US Patents only have a term of 20 years. Someone comes up with the cure for cancer and they only have rights for 20 years? These are poems and songs and words. By the time 50 years goes by, either these guys have already made a mint because the songs were popular, or they will never make anything. Asking for copyright extension, at least in my mind, is pure greed.

Answer 2

New Labour may be 'fascist Gods in motion' to misquote Heaven 17, but I think they're right this time. It's bad enough that these bands still charge top-dollar for concert tickets, and cash in on their past glory, but as the sample generation is now here, there material should enter the public domain. It's not as though these people need the money, unlike the likes of Ella Fitzgerald and her era, when the star actually got very little of the cash.
I watched the Super Bowl last year and saw the Rolling Stones, and Jagger sounded awful.

Answer 3

I am not a fan of Brown but I think rejecting the copyright extension is fair enough.

Did these people campaign for it to be changed when other, lesser stars were about to lose their copyright? No. Their interest is purely self-serving and should be viewed as such.

Answer 4

I think it's fair. 50 years is more than enough time for copyright protection. Gordon Brown Rocks!!!