If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   A new compilation of very early Bob Dylan tracks is so obviously an attempt to extend their copyright under the laws of the European Union that it's actually called "The Copyright Extension Collection, Volume 1"   (npr.org) divider line 25
    More: Obvious, Bob Dylan, record executive, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan  
•       •       •

1872 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Aug 2013 at 6:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-19 07:07:48 AM
i104.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-19 07:08:18 AM
So in about eleven years he'll be doing this with stuff that is more relevant to my interests?
There has to be someone on here who can point me towards an online treasure chest of Rolling Thunder era out-takes and demos?
 
2013-08-19 08:46:05 AM
In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.
 
2013-08-19 09:01:30 AM

Target Builder: In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.


I can see his point.  The law would have been better written as 50 years or until the artist's death, whichever is longer.  It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.
 
2013-08-19 09:09:07 AM

smimmy: Target Builder: 

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.

I can see his point.  The law would have been better written as 50 years or until the artist's death, whichever is longer.  It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.


I can certainly see the merit of the 'until the artist's death', although it might get complicated if you have multiple artists or a band with rotating members. But even then the new rule should only (IMO) apply going forward - it's hard to argue you needed a lifetime of copyright protection to motivate you to create work you produced under the 50-year system.
 
2013-08-19 09:13:42 AM

smimmy: Target Builder: In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.

I can see his point.  The law would have been better written as 50 years or until the artist's death, whichever is longer.  It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.


At 70, you should have saved enough to live off your savings and pensions/SS.
 
2013-08-19 09:37:22 AM

12349876: smimmy: Target Builder: In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.

I can see his point.  The law would have been better written as 50 years or until the artist's death, whichever is longer.  It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.

At 70, you should have saved enough to live off your savings and pensions/SS.



How they spend their money is not your business. If they made it, they should be compensated.
I know it doesn't resonate with the GIMME GIMME GIMME crowd that is convinced they are entitled to entertainment, but it's the right thing to do.
 
2013-08-19 10:01:25 AM
At 70, most artists would still be covered under the 50-year rule, unless they were teenagers when they recorded it.
 
2013-08-19 10:43:58 AM
smimmy: It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.

www.pablopicasso.org

cdn.pastemagazine.com

Disagree.
 
2013-08-19 10:55:57 AM
And yet of course there are people slavishly dropping Big Money for this collection...

"Stop wastin' my time. You know what I want..."
 
2013-08-19 12:00:24 PM
"Even record executives occasionally stray into honesty," says James Boyle, a law professor at Duke University. "This is, in fact, a copyright extension collection. That's what it is."

Guess you could say they were following...

Boyle's Law.
 
2013-08-19 12:08:35 PM

mcmnky: Boyle's Law.


you must have been under a lot of pressure to make that joke....

*Ahem*

I'm no expert in UK copyright law, i only play one on fark threads, but when the Beatles released their collection 9/9/09 (jeez, 4 years already?) i vaguely recall a few stories saying the Beatles collection -- well, the earliest stuff, by definition -- would fall into public domain in a few years, so that was their Last Best Chance to make a boatload of cash before their shiat goes public.  dunno.
 
2013-08-19 12:10:12 PM

Target Builder: In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.


Since most of today's music was largely assembled from samples, then I could see why people would want this copyright law to be rewritten.  Here's a tip: If you want to make money by writing music, then write your own music.  Then this problem wouldn't exist.

Oh, I'm sorry ... that would require people to actually DO something ... my bad.  Carry on with the plagiarism, then.
 
2013-08-19 12:36:18 PM

YoOjo: So in about eleven years he'll be doing this with stuff that is more relevant to my interests?
There has to be someone on here who can point me towards an online treasure chest of Rolling Thunder era out-takes and demos?


I would look on torrent sites, or just google for Rolling Thunder bootlegs. I found a copy of the Ft Worth concert I went to when I was 13. Greatness.
 
2013-08-19 12:53:54 PM

happydude45: YoOjo: So in about eleven years he'll be doing this with stuff that is more relevant to my interests?
There has to be someone on here who can point me towards an online treasure chest of Rolling Thunder era out-takes and demos?

I would look on torrent sites, or just google for Rolling Thunder bootlegs. I found a copy of the Ft Worth concert I went to when I was 13. Greatness.


Thanks, I don't know who to trust with torrent sites though and googling those words just links to the official release.
 
2013-08-19 01:24:21 PM
"The Copyright Extension Collection, Volume 1"


That would be a great name for an album.
 
2013-08-19 02:58:10 PM

comhcinc: "The Copyright Extension Collection, Volume 1"


That would be a great name for an album.


Just wait until the "Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album's Copyright Extension Re-Mix."
 
2013-08-19 02:59:01 PM

stoli n coke: How they spend their money is not your business. If they made it, they should be compensated.
I know it doesn't resonate with the GIMME GIMME GIMME crowd that is convinced they are entitled to entertainment, but it's the right thing to do.


The theft of public domain is very much all of our business, because we are the ones being stolen from. Copyright was created to promote the arts, not to secure profits for transnational corporations or lock our culture away in their hands for an entire lifetime. Steamboat Willy, created in 1928, is still not in the public domain, and I was born more than 40 years after its creation. That is a theft of culture.

 

Dr. Kefarkian: Since most of today's music was largely assembled from samples, then I could see why people would want this copyright law to be rewritten.  Here's a tip: If you want to make money by writing music, then write your own music.  Then this problem wouldn't exist.


Right, because it's not real music unless you understand it. Protip: Try out Kid Koala's Drunk Trumpet - his instrument is the turntable.
 
2013-08-19 04:04:36 PM
I don't go in for that pretentious hippie crap. I just listen to party-friendly CDs like "NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL COPYRIGHT EXTENSION! VOL. 46"
 
2013-08-19 04:21:49 PM

stoli n coke: 12349876: smimmy: Target Builder: In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.

I can see his point.  The law would have been better written as 50 years or until the artist's death, whichever is longer.  It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.

At 70, you should have saved enough to live off your savings and pensions/SS.


How they spend their money is not your business. If they made it, they should be compensated.
I know it doesn't resonate with the GIMME GIMME GIMME crowd that is convinced they are entitled to entertainment, but it's the right thing to do.


Maybe he should have written other music during those 50 years.

Think of all the great artistic things that have come from reinterpreting/reimagining etc. the public domain.  All that art being lost so the great great grandchildren can live like Paris Hilton.
 
2013-08-19 06:59:29 PM
Copyrights need to expire. Fark you.

/There need me nothing more said.
 
2013-08-20 01:07:56 AM
TFA is from January. Thanks for keeping us up to date, subby.
 
2013-08-20 05:42:23 AM

12349876: stoli n coke: 12349876: smimmy: Target Builder: In an interview with the BBC, Richard says it's not fair that artists should lose the right to collect royalties from their records just because those records happen to be 50 years old. "That's my creative juices," Richard says. "I created it, I helped to arrange it. I helped sometimes to produce it. And you make this record. And then someone takes it away before you're even dead."

fark you. The only reason you were able to make any money at all off that work was because the government agreed to protect your copyright to it for half a century, which you seemed fine with at the time, on the understanding it would then fall into the public domain.

I can see his point.  The law would have been better written as 50 years or until the artist's death, whichever is longer.  It's not like there's a lot of 70 year olds who are going to be creating new works of art because the copyright expired on their old stuff.  The creative juices only last so long.

At 70, you should have saved enough to live off your savings and pensions/SS.


How they spend their money is not your business. If they made it, they should be compensated.
I know it doesn't resonate with the GIMME GIMME GIMME crowd that is convinced they are entitled to entertainment, but it's the right thing to do.

Maybe he should have written other music during those 50 years.

Think of all the great artistic things that have come from reinterpreting/reimagining etc. the public domain.  All that art being lost so the great great grandchildren can live like Paris Hilton.



Again, their finances are not your business. Doesn't bother me that Mick Jagger's made enough to make sure the next 4 generations of his family won't have to work again. He created a product people liked, he deserves the rewards of it (especially after having much of the money from the first half of his career stolen by shady accountants and managers)

Lots of artists use samples and do covers, but they know they have to cut the creator of the piece in on it and get their permission. If all you're doing is decorating someone else's art, you don't deserve to keep all the proceeds from said art.

No one's deprived because your band can't take samples from 50 more well known artists, repackage them, and try to sell them off as your own work.
 
2013-08-20 07:28:40 AM

Hiro-ACiD: The theft of public domain is very much all of our business, because we are the ones being stolen from. Copyright was created to promote the arts, not to secure profits for transnational corporations or lock our culture away in their hands for an entire lifetime. Steamboat Willy, created in 1928, is still not in the public domain, and I was born more than 40 years after its creation. That is a theft of culture.


I have never understood how Steamboat Willie is an example of any kind of theft of culture. Does anyone feel that that deprived because they can't buy a dvd copy featuring a crappy transfer of steamboat willie from the dollar bin at walmart? You can watch it on youtube for free from disney. Plus what people always forget when they use disney as an example, is that Mickey Mouse is also a trademark of the disney corporation. Trademarks never expire so even if steamboat willie did fall into public domain it would be very difficult for other companies to use images from that movie.
 
2013-08-20 10:54:08 AM

Hiro-ACiD: stoli n coke: How they spend their money is not your business. If they made it, they should be compensated.
I know it doesn't resonate with the GIMME GIMME GIMME crowd that is convinced they are entitled to entertainment, but it's the right thing to do.

The theft of public domain is very much all of our business, because we are the ones being stolen from. Copyright was created to promote the arts, not to secure profits for transnational corporations or lock our culture away in their hands for an entire lifetime. Steamboat Willy, created in 1928, is still not in the public domain, and I was born more than 40 years after its creation. That is a theft of culture.

 Dr. Kefarkian: Since most of today's music was largely assembled from samples, then I could see why people would want this copyright law to be rewritten.  Here's a tip: If you want to make money by writing music, then write your own music.  Then this problem wouldn't exist.

Right, because it's not real music unless you understand it. Protip: Try out Kid Koala's Drunk Trumpet - his instrument is the turntable.


Wat?

I'm well aware that anything can be used as an instrument, and I'm not saying that, "It's not music if I don't understand it", either.  I love rap and hip hop, even though they use samples.  But if somebody uses another person's music and expects to get paid for it, without paying the original composer, that's just plain retarded.  Musicians should get compensated, and if they don't when somebody uses their works, it's called plagiarism.  What part about that don't you understand?
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report