Don’t be greedy, Cliff!
Sir Cliff backs royalty campaign
Cliff Richard is something of a pop icon in England. He started out in the late fifties as the local homegrown answer to Elvis (complete with sneer), transitioned to Pop in the sixties and Christian music in the seventies. While virtually unknown over here, he is as much of an institution as Elton John, and probably the richest Pop singer in England.
Faced with the expiration of the copyright of his earliest work, he is campaigning to have the copyright period extended to achieve parity with the songwriters, who had their copyrights extended from 50 to 90 years in 1988.
The purpose of copyright is to provide an inventive for artists to keep producing music.
- Not to provide welfare for aging musicians.
- Not to provide income for their descendants unto the third and fourth generation.
- And certainly not to provide an endless income stream for Media Corporations.
Funny how the rest of us get paid for the work we do when we do it, while this lot are bleating that fifty years of royalties are not enough.
So here’s my suggestion.
- Triple the royalties paid to both performers and songwriters, and
- Reduce the copyright period to ten years.
And stop being so greedy, Sir Cliff!
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://wizardprang.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/dont-be-greedy-cliff/trackback/
2 Comments Leave a comment.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why not just allow royalties to continue until the original artist’s death?
Sounds like a good idea… but it has two minor flaws.
Firstly, here in the US we have this thing called the Constitution, in which Congress is empowered “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”. I’m not sure how “limited” can me interpreted as “the rest of your life”.
Secondly, such a law would reward longer-lived artists such as Cliff. Why should he get fifty years of royalties on his songs, while Buddy Holly and Jimi Hendrix do not?
Does anyone else get lifetime earnings? If not, why should they? I would rather see a guaranteed ten or fifteen-year royalty going to the next of kin.