Copyright extension in the UK

The following post contains political content. If you don't care about politics, you probably won't find this interesting. If you do get through this post and have any thoughts on the situation, please comment. Especially if you disagree with me.

I read in the news today that culture minister in the UK is backing a 20-year extension to musical copyrights. This pushes the term from 50 years to 70 years, and is being backed by various artists, perhaps most vocally by Cliff Richards. Earlier this year he called for the extension when it became clear his 1958 hit "Move It!" was due to enter the public domain. The argument: it's morally wrong that he should no longer earn royalties for the recording he made 50 years ago. Note: this is only relevant to the 1958 recording of the song. If anybody covers it, he is still entitled to royalties, and other later recordings of his song are still protected by the current term of copyright.

I am firmly opposed to this extension, for a number of reasons. The extension is completely unnatural and at odds with any other profession. To use the example of Sir Cliff's recording: the original recording engineers certainly aren't being paid continuously for every use of the song. Consider other professions: builders do not make money every time somebody buys a house they have built. I am not being continuously paid for work I did even a year ago. And why should I be? What incentive do I have to work further if I am constantly being paid for something I did in the past?

The issue here isn't that artists shouldn't be rewarded for their work. They should. But to be rewarded continuously, over such a long period, is purely excessive and only benefits a few select people rather than culture as a whole. The whole point of copyright was that it would protect an artist's interests for a short while so that they would have a continuous incentive to create works, after which the work would become part of the public domain so it would benefit society as a whole. Now it has been turned completely about-face. It should come as no surprise that the main organisations backing this copyright extension are the major music labels: after all, they are the ones who stand to gain most from this.

Why am I so opposed to this? Well, primarily it is because I consider music a cultural asset. There is no value in music if there is nobody to listen to it. A piece of music could be one of the most beautiful pieces created, but without anyone to listen to it, spread the word and share it with others, it has no effect. It may as well have not existed. So for me, the most important aspect of music is its cultural impact. You cannot separate music from culture: without culture, music would not exist. What's more, once a piece of music becomes a cultural asset, it inspires others, who create new music, which then becomes a culture asset and inspires more. This cycle is why we have such diverse, beautiful music in the first place. Now, people are willing to reward artists who create something that touches them: either through seeing that artist perform, or through buying recordings and other merchandise. I definitely am. However, without the benefit of this musical culture, we would never have come to the situation where people are exposed to music that touches them, and inspires them to create their own or to reward artists for their contribution. So in order to benefit from music, whether you want it to be something that enriches your life, or simply a financial tool, you need to give back to society and culture.

The current situation with musical copyrights does exactly the opposite. It concentrates on music as a business in its own right, rather than music as a cultural asset that can be monetised. There's a difference between these two. Treating music simply as a commodity will ultimately lead to the stagnation of music.

At this point, I feel I should stress that I am not opposed to people making money from music. Not at all. I am, however, opposed to music as a commodity, because this is directly detrimental to musical culture as a whole. Music is one of the most important things in my life, and for countless other people too. But whether you treat music as an enjoyable pasttime, as something that colours and adds something fulfilling to your life, or simply as a form of revenue, the stagnation of musical culture affects us all.

It is clear that the current business model for music is unsustainable. This is evident from witnessing the explosion of music being shared on the Internet. People are now questioning why they need to pay £12 for an album when they have only heard 2 of the songs on the radio, when they have no idea what the rest of the album is like, and when there is a strong chance that the album contains 3 good songs and 9 fillers. Now, with the existence of file sharing or Internet stores like iTunes, people are able to decide what music they want, and would like to support. But the vast majority of music created is still marginalised in favour of the mass-produced, instantly accessible pap that is considered commercially viable. For too long, music written purely for financial gain has been encouraged by those seeking to mass-market it. Extending copyrights simply rewards this faulty model and becomes a detriment to music as a whole.

Music is one of the biggest parts of my life. I love it. I will continue to create music regardless of my financial status. Earning money from my music would be wonderful, but whether I do or not, I will still create it with the same love for this art form as I always have.

To that end, all my music will be released under a Creative Commons licence. I don't wish to bore you with the legal details of it, so I will summarise what you are allowed to do under this licence: anything. You can use it for videos, commercials, on compilations. You can play it in public, on the radio, whatever purpose you can think of. You can charge for anything using the work, or release it for free. You can remix my work, or use it to create your own. All this you can do for free. The only condition is that you tell people about Gid and if possible make some reference to the original piece. A simple credit or link to this page would do. For more information on the Creative Commons licence, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/.

When I release 'The Saturnine EP' I will also be making the separate tracks available for any of you who wish to remix or rework it. In fact, I would love it if people did. So if you do remix/rework any of my music, drop me a message and let me know, because I'd love to hear it. Let's keep the spirit of creating music as a cultural artefact alive.

Recording 'The Saturnine EP' - update

I've had to buy some new equipment in order to complete the recording process for the first EP. It's all finally arrived, so all that needs to be done is get it all set up and then I'll be able to finish off the recordings. I can't put an exact date on when it will be finished; that said, now I've got the new equipment I'm able to increase the time spent on the recordings and I plan on dedicating the next few months to getting it done as quickly as possible. The minute it's done, it will be available to download.

Demo EP almost finished

The recording process for the demo EP has almost finished. I've been stealing time over the past couple of months to re-record older songs and I've also had some time to write and record new pieces. All that is left to do is finish recording some final parts, and to complete the mixing and mastering. Once it's finished, it'll be available to download for free from here.