On 06/12/06, David Lewis wrote:
> It is fascinating to contrast the Gowers report with the way the media
> is reporting this story. In the report, the authors use graphs and
> cite all kinds of examples as to how copyright extensions tend to
> chill innovation and to discourage historical preservation of
> recordings. It's VERY thorough.
> Whereas the CNN story, from the first, wants us to feel sorry that
> Mick Jagger will be losing his royalties for recordings due to the new
> law. But that won't happen for at least seven years, as Mick didn't
> make records until 1963. And it's not as though he has no other
> avenues for revenue (are you kidding?) or that revenue from what he
> recorded in 1963 would generate much income anyway. Mick still gets
> the revenue for the songwriting, so what's the big deal?
The big deal is that the big media companies want indefinite extension
(for their own profit, not for the benefit of the artists), and CNN is
part of a big media company.
Naturally their reporting is biassed.
[log in to unmask]