[pp.int.general] [Fwd: Re: From 50 to 95 years, next tuesday: how are WE going to react to extension of commercial rights?]

[Andrew Norton]

for some reason, my replies to reinier only ever go to reinier, not the 
list. re-forwarding to the list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] From 50 to 95 years, next tuesday: how are 
WE going to react to extension of commercial rights?
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:27:49 -0500
From: Andrew Norton <andrew.norton at pirate-party.us>
Reply-To: Andrew.norton at pirate-party.us
Organization: Pirate Party of the United States
To: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>
References: 
<4975BA3F.3030901 at yahoo.es><81160615E4D34D8EBCC53267189B0935 at RBB2008> 
<497606E7.1010005 at pirate-party.us> 
<7038BE229EE4433586A012C2AA84A4E9 at RBB2008>

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> My issue, and it's the position i've had since the uk proposed it 2 
>> years ago, is that no other old person gets money from work they did 
>> years ago, be they doctors, police, politicians. They either have to 
>> work, or they have to have invested in a pension. Why are musicians so 
>> special? They had their money, that they are poor now makes them no 
>> different from every other poor elderly person. If they couldn't be 
>> bothered to invest in their future, why should we do it for them?
> 
> I am not sure whether this is not a tenable argument. I you produce a 
> product for a customer, or render a service to someone, you are paid on 
> a contract. But if you produce information, it is sold to (potentially) 
> a large number of customers, over many years. So in a way in makes sense 
> to allow the money to flow for an extended period of time. Particularly 
> if works of art only become popular after some time. They could employ 
> artists and pay them like "ordinary" workers, i.e. once for their 
> service, and then it is over. But that actually happens today! The 
> problem is that artists are often forced into unfavourable contract, at 
> the start of their career, when they still have a weak negotiation 
> power. That is the reason that currently a special copyright contract 
> law exists in some countries (like DE), and is discussed in other 
> countries (like NL).

Well, just as well I said it was MY position then, not 'a lawyers
position' or anyone elses, or am I not allowed to have that?

Had you been following this issue for any length of time (as I have for
the past two years) you'd know that its come about because the big 50's
artists, that are still alive, are running out of royalty time. The
issue came up 2 years ago, because the artists complained to Fergal
Sharkey, and he brought it up with the government. Their complaints are
that they're running out of royalty time, and 'what are we going to do
for money then'.

It's that they've not bothered to save, figuring 50 years will last them
until they die. Now they've realised it won't, and they've pissed
through their money over the last few decades, and want more. Read the
statements from the artists, thats the issue.

I also think we've had the discussion before, about 'tenable arguments'.
Politics is about emotions, this extension is about greed, which is an
emotion. This is not a law court, or some ivory tower theoretical
situation. Your thinking doesn't work in real life.

BTW, if you don't produce your alternate manifesto in the next day or
two, it'll be too late for anyone to evaluate before helsinki, so, close
the email client, and fire up the word processor.

Andrew
PPI