NationStates Jolt Archive

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2028741.ece

Cut the misogyny and we’ll extend musicians’ copyright

David Cameron yesterday offered the music industry a unique deal – cut the glorification of materialism, misogyny and guns in hits and the next Conservative government would back an extension of the copyright on sound recordings from the current 50-year period to 70 years.

The change, which must be agreed at a Europe-wide level, means that musicians and singers would be guaranteed to receive royalty payments for their work for most of their lives.

Addressing the British Phonographic Industry annual meeting, Mr Cameron said: “Most people think these are all multimillionaires living in some penthouse flat. The reality is that many of these are low-earning session musicians who will be losing a vital pension.”

Rejecting a report commissioned by Gordon Brown, which said that there was no case for extending copyright, Mr Cameron quoted research which found that the change could boost the music industry by £3.3 billion over the next 50 years.

He argued that extending the term would give an “incentive to the music industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which more people can enjoy at no extra cost”.

Sir Cliff Richard, The Who and Sir Paul McCartney backed the campaign to extend the 50-year term, as the first rock’n’roll era recordings begin to fall out of copyright.

But in return for the commitment, and a promise that a Tory government would crack down on illegal file-sharing, Mr Cameron said that the music industry must demonstrate a wider social responsibility.

Does it seem like they're specifically targeting rap and rock, or is that just me?

Meh. Copyrights are kind of the government's thing.
Would it really be so bad to have less songs promoting misogyny, and materialism?

Good idea.

Meh. Copyrights are kind of the government's thing.
Would it really be so bad to have less songs promoting misogyny, and materialism?

Who defines what misogyny and materialism are?

Who defines what misogyny and materialism are?

You know what? I do.

You know what? I do.

Of course.

And why is it just targeting those? It seems to be if you're going to target something, in the end, doesn't the glorification of violence do much more damage than materialism.

why must the conservative party always be evil?!

and I'm confused about these poverty stricken musicians, how exactly are they going to make money from royalties if nobody is buying there music :confused:

And why is it just targeting those? It seems to be if you're going to target something, in the end, doesn't the glorification of violence do much more damage than materialism.

Not based on what I can tell. If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of people in Western society are materialistic, but the vast majority are not violent. In fact, violent crime has fallen in nearly every Western nation while graphic violence in the media has increased. Obviously it has no effect.

However, it is readily apparent that the items rap stars and others blither on about become quite popular, especially with youth.

why must the conservative party always be evil?!

and I'm confused about these poverty stricken musicians, how exactly are they going to make money from royalties if nobody is buying there music :confused:

So people will only buy music if it's derogatory towards women and promotes Ford Escalades?

Congratulations, your opinion of the average human being may be lower than mine. A feat indeed.

I know I only buy music about hos on dubs.

I know I only buy music about hos on dubs.

i hate that type of music ;)

Congratulations, your opinion of the average human being may be lower than mine. A feat indeed.

where are you getting that from? do you have an assumption producing machine back there or something?

So, in return for stifling artistic freedoms a future Conservative government would push for an extension to laws that are shown - on a daily basis - to be hopelessly ineffective? Sounds like yet another winning plan, Dave.

There's so much more that can be ranted upon vis a vis copyright-style laws, the freedoms of artists to express themselves and the overwhelming corruption inherent in the music industry - not to mention little things like where to draw the line in defining what constitutes misogyny, misandry or any other facet of the human condition - that I don't even know where to begin.

Fortunately, in this instance I don't think it's particularly relevant... this looks to be just another example of Cameron seeing a chance to disagree with something that has Gordon Brown's name on it (in this case, the report stating that there is no case for extending copyright terms) and leaping on it to score some more petty points.

A chance for more 'Oooohs', 'Aahhhs' and 'Yaaays' shouted across the House. Bollocks, I say.

Meh. Copyrights are kind of the government's thing.
Would it really be so bad to have less songs promoting misogyny, and materialism?

But how long until it becomes political and social messages unpopular with the majority? How long until it becomes a matter of only singing mindless pop songs? To a certain extent, I'm of the opinion that musicians should get lifetime copyright on origional performances, and short-term copyrights on the actual music, but this is not okay.

Art is one of the ways that social dialogue occurs. To control the message of artists with this kind of transparent bribe is shameful.

Cameron if I understand it has no power because it's Labour, not the Tories who are in government.

So this is just an election promise. Which according to the Iron Law of Politics, means we need not worry about it because if he's elected he'll promptly do nothing, or quite possibly come out with his own Gangsta Rap CD just to be contrary.

And what is wrong with an artist getting their fair share for the work they did? The villains in all of this are the labels and the big box record stores who overprice work and the politicians.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2028741.ece

Cut the misogyny and we’ll extend musicians’ copyright



Does it seem like they're specifically targeting rap and rock, or is that just me?

I'm not sure about this. I'm no mysogynist, but hey, freedom of expression.

where are you getting that from? do you have an assumption producing machine back there or something?

The issue here is with that particular variety of music. You're saying that people wouldn't buy the music unless it's filled with misogyny and materialism.

I understood that as if the poor musicians sell less than the rich and thus still don't make a living.

I think there is nothing wrong with the copyright which a long application of the backspace key can not fix!

I understood that as if the poor musicians sell less than the rich and thus still don't make a living.

I think there is nothing wrong with the copyright which a long application of the backspace key can not fix!

Look, Copyright has a purpose beyond making money for a few corporate masters. I wrote a song this morning; should I not get credit for it? Should you be able to steal all of my hard work without my permission? Should your employer be able to do the same thing? Sharing music is beneficial to me as a small artist, but my work is mine, and stealing it is no more right than your employer refusing to pay you.

Does the music industry need to cut prices? Hell yes, but don't hurt the little guys because the bastards in charge are fucking them over too.

Look, Copyright has a purpose beyond making money for a few corporate masters. I wrote a song this morning; should I not get credit for it? Should you be able to steal all of my hard work without my permission? Should your employer be able to do the same thing? Sharing music is beneficial to me as a small artist, but my work is mine, and stealing it is no more right than your employer refusing to pay you.

Does the music industry need to cut prices? Hell yes, but don't hurt the little guys because the bastards in charge are fucking them over too.

Don't you know? You should be entertaining everyone for free for the love, man. In fact, you shouldn't have the choice. Of course if you pulled this kind of bullshit on the guy building your fence, you'd get a solid one to the nose, but since these 'entitled' little bastards never have to face you, fucking you is no problem.

Wow, who 'you' referred to in that was all over the map. Good luck with that.

Don't you know? You should be entertaining everyone for free for the love, man. In fact, you shouldn't have the choice. Of course if you pulled this kind of bullshit on the guy building your fence, you'd get a solid one to the nose, but since these 'entitled' little bastards never have to face you, fucking you is no problem.

Well, let's be fair on the other side. I get the best side of this deal, because I don't make money on my recordings anyway, so by getting my name out, I benefit. It's the artists who are just successful enough to make money but not successful enough to not have to worry about losing 10 percent of what they make to downloaders who are getting fucked. The sad thing is that the bands that get hurt most are the bands that most "revolutionaries" who whine about having to pay for music like most. It's not the Metallicas or the Red Hot Chilli Peppers that are getting fucked by them, it's the small punk bands who barely break even.

You know what? I do.

As a consumer, you absolutely do. And frankly, I'd like less misogyny and materialism in music as well, but I don't want government regulating content. Can you imagine how much worse US music would be right now if the Bush administration had that kind of power?

"Make propaganda for us and we'll give you money!"

"Make propaganda for us and we'll give you money!"

Been there, done that (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/).

As a consumer, you absolutely do. And frankly, I'd like less misogyny and materialism in music as well, but I don't want government regulating content. Can you imagine how much worse US music would be right now if the Bush administration had that kind of power?

They're not regulating the content. Just providing an incentive to create music that's more socially responsible.

They're not regulating the content. Just providing an incentive to create music that's more socially responsible.

BUt the underlying problem is still the same--do you want any government telling an industry what is socially responsible in terms of art? Hell, in this administration, that would mean music about keeping your woman in check and killing Arabs would benefit. The Right Brothers (http://www.therightbrothers.com/) would make out like bandits. And let's just say I wouldn't want the left saying what was proper for music either. I'm not generally one who trusts the free markets, but I'd rather let individuals sort out what's art for themselves than put a government, any government, in the position of rewarding what's considered beneficial.

I'm not sure about this. I'm no mysogynist, but hey, freedom of expression.

Misogynistic music sounds pretty awesome, but then again I hate freedom, so I guess I'm for it.

Wow, the government exercising social control through monopoly grants, who would have thunk it?

Misogynistic music sounds pretty awesome, but then again I hate freedom, so I guess I'm for it.

Only you could think of something like that, Sadisco. (snickers)

I don't really listen to misogynistic or materialistic music. However, warn me if they start banning blasphemous music. Then I might be in trouble.

This thread isn't moving very fast. Remind me to next time name it "Evil government pig dogs bribe bastard musicians to distribute propaganda". That'll get some posts.

Or maybe Fear and Loathing In Government Propaganda Schemes or something.

BUt the underlying problem is still the same--do you want any government telling an industry what is socially responsible in terms of art? Hell, in this administration, that would mean music about keeping your woman in check and killing Arabs would benefit. The Right Brothers (http://www.therightbrothers.com/) would make out like bandits. And let's just say I wouldn't want the left saying what was proper for music either. I'm not generally one who trusts the free markets, but I'd rather let individuals sort out what's art for themselves than put a government, any government, in the position of rewarding what's considered beneficial.

The Right Brothers deserve to make a killing. They're a great parody.

Cameron if I understand it has no power because it's Labour, not the Tories who are in government.

So this is just an election promise. Which according to the Iron Law of Politics, means we need not worry about it because if he's elected he'll promptly do nothing, or quite possibly come out with his own Gangsta Rap CD just to be contrary.

Yo! I'd like to shout out to mah niggas Maggie and Churchill. Tory 4 lyfeee. Booyakasha!

The Right Brothers deserve to make a killing. They're a great parody.If only they were a parody.

If only they were a parody.

If they aren't, then the best way to marginalize them is to treat them as a parody.

If they aren't, then the best way to marginalize them is to treat them as a parody.

OBLIGATORY: That's kinda sensible.