How long is it reasonable for copyright protections to last?

We *know* that you know copyright law - and that this is a purely hypothetical question. We also respect the intellectual property of artist, and want them to be able to make a decent and fair recompense from their works. And we ALL know places where you need not BUY many works, if you just want to see them - all or part - before you make a purchase decision. (Conversely, we all have shelves of stuff we bought on faith - and sometime large expense - because we trusted it to be good or suitable - and now we cannot even unload it on half.com). Most of the general public has their ears stuck in another century - things that film score or even popular music fans call *amazing* are constructed of things that were old-school in the late 1800s. If a film score even sounded like early Mahler, not to mention Stravinsky - people would be stunned, and not know how to handle the modernity of it - even when it is over 100 years old. So - modern classical/art music is not obscure becasue of copyright issues - it is obscure because outside of academia, performances of this great stuff just do not exist. Those of us who will DIG for it, can find places to hear it, or buy the strange-label CDs of it - and gasp at the cost of a score, if in fact we can get one. IN every professional chamber music concert we play, we try to perform something that NOBODY has heard here or anywhere in a LONNNG time - if ever. Some of this stuff is old by the calendar - but just about as modern as the audience's ears can take - and it is but one work among others (eat your vegetables - and there will be a tasty dessert!). That one work feeds US musically - but a concert of it and its kin would make sure that we never would be asked back to play again. The relatively few ensembles that do ONLY *new* music, have indeed small audiences - loyal, but small - and artistic pride - but betcha that most of the players need to do other things to support themselves, and play what they wish. We supported ourselves for decades by teaching school - we were good at it, kids loved us, and we endured so we could pay the bills and then PLAY WHAT WE WANTED on our own. So did the math teacher who played incredible world music on many ethnic string instruments; the reading teacher who played many blues gigs, etc. Some of the BEST musicians I have worked with were biologists, dietitians, engineers, etc. - and some of the worst, music teachers - ick ick ick. In our society, if you want to be truly musically creative, you need to pay the bills by another source - even the BIG venues and performing groups need to do the Old Lady programming to survive. How long the copyright is on any of the music they do is the LEAST of their worries. Want to survive at this? You need butts in the seats - lots and lots of butts . . .

I think it has no bearing on classical / contemporary music at all. The public, as Mamianka has already stated, are anywhere from 130 to fifty years 'behind their time' when it comes to the 'oldest' of 'modern' music, let alone music written later. Since it is a matter of course that many a worthwhile classical piece, back then as well as now, takes decades and more to come to be in general circulation, performed or recorded, I think the copyright length of life if not already right, could be even a bit longer. If a work is written when one is twenty, and becomes popular for years, the author has income from it until age ninety, not a bad run. If the length of copyright was longer, and that work written at age twenty did not gain circulation for a number of decades (often the case), the composer might actually have something left in the way of estate, then, to leave descendents or friends. I have purchased recordings and score of many a work under copyright, choosing not to wait or work from some tacky photocopy or computer print-out. Anyone earnest about music still under copyright does the same - a simple matter of priority, often meaning doing without something else without even thinking about 'sacrifice.' The fee for performances or royalties paid out from record sales is truly negligible in the overall revenue status of a performing ensemble and effects nothing in the way of the work being disseminated. The chart from the article was on books, literature, popular fiction, etc. This is a whole other ball game apart from contemporary music: in fact the situation is quite the opposite. People in general feel much that was written in the first half of the 20th century is already smelling 'very dated.' That is just not a factor in modern music and the general public's relationship with it: regular concert goers still react as if they had been submitted to torture when one of three works on the program is Dutilleux's lyric 'cello concerto, "Tout un monde lointain." !!! It is not the fact it is under copyright that prevents or inhibits consumers from listening to it, buying a concert seat or recorded performance: it is the consumers themselves who are the problem, not the copyright, nor the length of its legitimacy. Best regards.

I think it has no bearing on classical / contemporary music at all. The public, as Mamianka has already stated, are anywhere from 130 to fifty years 'behind their time' when it comes to the 'oldest' of 'modern' music, let alone music written later. Since it is a matter of course that many a worthwhile classical piece, back then as well as now, takes decades and more to come to be in general circulation, performed or recorded, I think the copyright length of life if not already right, could be even a bit longer. If a work is written when one is twenty, and becomes popular for years, the author has income from it until age ninety, not a bad run. If the length of copyright was longer, and that work written at age twenty did not gain circulation for a number of decades (often the case), the composer might actually have something left in the way of estate, then, to leave descendents or friends. I have purchased recordings and score of many a work under copyright, choosing not to wait or work from some tacky photocopy or computer print-out. Anyone earnest about music still under copyright does the same - a simple matter of priority, often meaning doing without something else without even thinking about 'sacrifice.' The fee for performances or royalties paid out from record sales is truly negligible in the overall revenue status of a performing ensemble and effects nothing in the way of the work being disseminated. The chart from the article was on books, literature, popular fiction, etc. This is a whole other ball game apart from contemporary music: in fact the situation is quite the opposite. People in general feel much that was written in the first half of the 20th century is already smelling 'very dated.' That is just not a factor in modern music and the general public's relationship with it: regular concert goers still react as if they had been submitted to torture when one of three works on the program is Dutilleux's lyric 'cello concerto, "Tout un monde lointain." !!! It is not the fact it is under copyright that prevents or inhibits consumers from listening to it, buying a concert seat or recorded performance: it is the consumers themselves who are the problem, not the copyright, nor the length of its legitimacy. Best regards.

I think current copyright laws are extreme, but there is nothing I can do about it. In case you didn't know, it was Walt Disney that managed to get copyright laws changed due to the copyright expiring on Mickey Mouse.

I think current copyright laws are extreme, but there is nothing I can do about it. In case you didn't know, it was Walt Disney that managed to get copyright laws changed due to the copyright expiring on Mickey Mouse.

mamianka and petr b have both made excellent points and so I won't go into length here. While I think 70 years might be slightly on the long side (50 years strikes me as a reasonable time), I need to take to task df74sg (at the risk of incurring 5 thumbs down!): Think about this, Daniel: if copyright ceases as soon as a composer and yet his/her music is still receiving regular performances, don't you think the composer's family deserve some income from these performances? Surely you would want to know YOUR family was protected and would receive some benefits from your life's work after your death?

I think 70 years is too long. Copyright of any piece of music should expire immediately upon death of the composer. Music should be free for all to enjoy. Composers already earned enough royalties and fees while they were alive. For example, do you know how rich Bach was?

mamianka and petr b have both made excellent points and so I won't go into length here. While I think 70 years might be slightly on the long side (50 years strikes me as a reasonable time), I need to take to task df74sg (at the risk of incurring 5 thumbs down!): Think about this, Daniel: if copyright ceases as soon as a composer and yet his/her music is still receiving regular performances, don't you think the composer's family deserve some income from these performances? Surely you would want to know YOUR family was protected and would receive some benefits from your life's work after your death?

I think 70 years is too long. Copyright of any piece of music should expire immediately upon death of the composer. Music should be free for all to enjoy. Composers already earned enough royalties and fees while they were alive. For example, do you know how rich Bach was?