Cliff Richard will lose royalties

[gcol]

Just been on the news. Apparently an artist can only be paid royalties for 50 years. So songs Cliff released in 1958 will, in 2 years cease to earn him money. Seems a bit daft to me. I can see why he's mad and wants the time frame lengthening.
Still, the cost of living is less in Portugal.

 

[Gary_M]

Yeah, I was watching this too, and agreed to what he was saying - he was being 'robbed' of his work. I wonder if he could re-write ONE word in each of his songs to another word that sounded exactly the same as the original word when sung, and then copyright it. That way he gets another 50 years on it as no one would be able to sing it without breaching copyright - only read it silently to themself, and that is taking the 'unplugged' set a bit too far

The way things seem to be going with him, he'll have to go through this process again in 2056 - but then, he would only need to revert to the original word and copyright that again, and so on.................

 

[Softus]

Seems a bit daft to me.

What seems daft to me is that he's waited 48 years before bleating about it.

The greedy self-obsessed t*sser.

(Just standing in for PVM)

 

[WoodYouLike]

Yeah, I was watching this too, and agreed to what he was saying - he was being 'robbed' of his work.

I didn't agree at all. We work all our lives and get paid for it, not? When we retire, are you still being paid for all the work you have done before??
We work, get paid, save-up for retirement, that's it. No double measurements for 'song-writers'. (He should have used - invested - his royalties better instead of complaining now).

 

[masona]

To be fair to Cliff, he does give a lot of money to charity.

 

[Softus]

To be fair to Cliff, he does give a lot of money to charity.

I don't wish to take that generoous act away from him, but he also has a lot of money that he keeps too...

 

[gcol]

Seems a bit daft to me.

What seems daft to me is that he's waited 48 years before bleating about it.

The greedy self-obsessed t*sser.

(Just standing in for PVM)

I must admit I did think the same - why has he waited while now to complain.

 

[gcol]

Yeah, I was watching this too, and agreed to what he was saying - he was being 'robbed' of his work.

I didn't agree at all. We work all our lives and get paid for it, not? When we retire, are you still being paid for all the work you have done before??
We work, get paid, save-up for retirement, that's it. No double measurements for 'song-writers'. (He should have used - invested - his royalties better instead of complaining now).

So you think that if an advertising company were to use one of Cliff's older songs in an advert then they should get to use it for free? Doesn't change the fact that he wrote it. Credit where credit's due. They wanna use the song, they should pay for the privilege.

 

[WoodYouLike]

Yes, there is where the 50 years royalty scheme comes in. A fixed time where Cliff can make money out of his 'work'. Why does he want to prolonge this period, that's what I don't agree on.

 

[dg123]

Yeah, I was watching this too, and agreed to what he was saying - he was being 'robbed' of his work.

I didn't agree at all. We work all our lives and get paid for it, not? When we retire, are you still being paid for all the work you have done before??
We work, get paid, save-up for retirement, that's it. No double measurements for 'song-writers'. (He should have used - invested - his royalties better instead of complaining now).

So you think that if an advertising company were to use one of Cliff's older songs in an advert then they should get to use it for free? Doesn't change the fact that he wrote it. Credit where credit's due. They wanna use the song, they should pay for the privilege.

Just a thought: If you made furniture and sold it, would you expect a payment each time it was used?

 

[Softus]

So you think that if an advertising company were to use one of Cliff's older songs in an advert then they should get to use it for free? Doesn't change the fact that he wrote it. Credit where credit's due. They wanna use the song, they should pay for the privilege.

This is not a moral dilemma - the law is perfectly clear on the matter.

If Cliff didn't know about the law at the time, then that's truly a pity, but would he have done anything differently even if he knew?

Is 50 years of profit not enough?! If you think not, then are you campaigning for changes to the legislation?

 

[gcol]

Dg123, You can't compare the two. A piece of furniture has an intrinsic value, the song has no value unless it is listened to and paid for.
A song can be immediately sent around the world to make money for whomever uses it. I can't imagine why you would begrudge the writer his dues. Also if it's right to pay for the song from 0-50 years why not for another 10 or 20 years extra?

 

[masona]

Look at Sir Paul McCartney, nearly a billionaire, the first ever richest pop star, what's the point of keeping that amount?

 

[gcol]

So you think that if an advertising company were to use one of Cliff's older songs in an advert then they should get to use it for free? Doesn't change the fact that he wrote it. Credit where credit's due. They wanna use the song, they should pay for the privilege.

This is not a moral dilemma - the law is perfectly clear on the matter.

If Cliff didn't know about the law at the time, then that's truly a pity, but would he have done anything differently even if he knew. Is 50 years of profit not enough?! If you think not, then are you campaigning for changes to the legislation?

I'm sure if he had have known about it then he wouldn't have done anything any differently. I think that the reason the 50 years comes into it is that whomever made up the law thought that would see most artists out. It's just because Cliff won't die that this is an issue.

 

[Softus]

A piece of furniture has an intrinsic value...

Really? The table is valuable even if nobody is either using it or getting pleasure from looking at it? How so?

...the song has no value unless it is listened to and paid for.

So because you listen to it and don't see it, the table analogy doesn't apply?

Also if it's right to pay for the song from 0-50 years why not for another 10 or 20 years extra?

Because it is the law.