Print

Print


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? 

David N. Lewis
Assistant Classical Editor, All Music Guide

"Music expresses what one cannot say, but about which one cannot remain
silent." - Victor Hugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen C Leggett
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Britain: Gowers Report on Intellectual Property

CNN story: "U.K. No Music Copyright Extension"
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/06/uk.copyright.reut/
 
Actual report
http://media.ft.com/cms/b30682f8-8531-11db-b12c-0000779e2340.pdf