[Upd-discuss] Cliff Richard challenges EU rock'n'roll 'swindle'

[becky@idnet.co.uk]

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--==_15423234600423@mail.idnet.co.uk==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thanks Mickey and James.

FYI, please find below a letter I have just sent off to the Times.

To Mr Adam Sherwin

I write in response to your article in the November 1 issue of The Times=
 "Cliff challenges EU rock'n'roll 'swindle'"

Sir Cliff Richard, though no doubt admirable in his desire to lead "a fight=
 for music=92s unsung heroes" should understand that he is achieving quite=
 the opposite through his lobbying of the EU to extend the terms of=
 copyright on sound recordings beyond 50 years. For it is those creators of=
 music in the 60s that is no longer commercially viable today who will=
 really lose out should the copyright term be extended.

Because as well as lusty pornographers, who are no doubt itching to use Sir=
 Cliff's happy ditties to soundtrack their nefarious visuals, there is a=
 community of online music enthusiasts who lust after the not so well-sung=
 musical heroes of the sixties. Once the music is released into the public=
 domain, this community will be free to distribute fringe music to a whole=
 new generation of fans. Okay, the composers of the music will get no=
 (immediate) financial compensation - but they wouldn't anyway. And what=
 they will get is new recognition for their work, recognition that has been=
 denied to them ever since their record companies decided they were no=
 longer commercially viable, and stopped releasing their music.

Because for every song that record companies treasure for ongoing=
 back-catalogue profits, there are hundreds if not thousands of recordings=
 that have been languishing on record company shelves for decades, with=
 nobody to hear them. Should the EU choose to heed Sir Cliff, keeping his=
 work out of the public domain for a further 45 years or even more, he will=
 drag down with him this huge body of commercially worthless but culturally=
 significant work. It is this body of work that "those who believe that=
 music should be 'free'" are truly worried about - and it is the=
 emancipation of this music, not the financial cost, with which they are=
 concerned.

Yours sincerely

Becky Hogge

---- Message from James Davis <jamesd@jml.net> at 2004-11-01 15:34:00 ------
>On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 becky@idnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Quick question - are Cliff's moral rights over songs he has both created
>> and performed affected once the performance rights have expired?
>
>As an aside, from what I can tell the A side of his first single was
>Schoolboy Crush, (a hit in the US for Bobby Helms). The B-side was Move It
>and written by Ian Samwell. I also seem to recall from a radio interview
>last week that Sir Cliff doesn't write his own songs.
>
>James
>
>--
>"You're turning into a penguin. Stop it"
>http://jamesd.ukgeeks.co.uk/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Upd-discuss mailing list
>Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss


--==_15423234600423@mail.idnet.co.uk==_
Content-Type: text/directory; charset="iso-8859-1"; profile="vcard"; name="becky.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="becky.vcf"

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:3.0
PRODID:-//Gordano//NONSGML GMS 10.00.3213//EN
REV:2003-10-09T06:49:03Z
FN:
N:;;;;
EMAIL;TYPE=3DINTERNET:becky@idnet.co.uk
END:VCARD


--==_15423234600423@mail.idnet.co.uk==_--