Thrown Off A Cliff

Copyright law is always a bitch if you ask me. I dont consider myself particularly knowledgeable but as far as I know copyright in Australia lasts until I think 50 years after the performer/composers death? Feel free to correct me on that. Anyway, its not Australia we're talking about here.

According to The Times British musicians were last week 'celebrating' the European Parliaments decision to extend the length of Copyright from 50 years after the song is released to 95. None happier, apparently, than Sir Cliff Richard, whos early hits, released in the 50's, are about to stop earning him royalty cheques. The man turns 69 this year.

“Of course I’m pleased for myself, but the relief will be huge for those performers whose pension is largely made up of royalties from perhaps just two or three recordings in the fifties or sixties. Well done and thanks to the lawmakers for a good and just decision.”

Alright hold it right there. Does anyone else think that Sir Cliff has just shown what a 'blithering idiot' (Jeremey Clarkson has given me a new liking of that phrase) he is with that statement? While he was off enjoying a knighthood and the consequent fame that comes with such a pompous aura most of these artists who had their 'two or three recordings' were out either getting JOBS or running themselves into bankruptcy with drug habits and subsequently dying. You dont know where these artists are now as they've assimilated back into the mainstream of regular joes (and josephines). They're not persuing some trivial extension of copyright so that they can get their royalties from AM radio performance well into their 80's.

If he had any sense about him Sir Cliff could have used the massive amounts of money he no doubt DID make back in his heyday (once he started writing his own material) to invest in personal interests, stocks, fucking whatever! He's had the money for ages! Hell, here's an idea, just go an re-record your own goddam material the day the copyright expires! You wrote it, I'm sure people won't have a problem. Then again I don't see many bands these days lining up to do a cover of 'Living Doll' anyway!



In summary; while considered significant, I personally think the law is more symbolic than important. But to have some greedy old shit complain that he's not going to get his royalties anymore while most of the people his age have worked long and hard for a living, paying off mortgages and living off super and a pension really shits me.