Wow, I simply love these sort of discussions. Thank you Mr. C and ds1984 for initiating this.
I always wanted the chance to talk out of the box about such issues with people on both sides of the fence. I really haven't made my mind up, but I do have an opinion to add to the debate.
I think what complicates matters is the moral and logical barrier that the music industry has created by lobbying laws to extend their control and money making potential on recordings.
I mean that the first copyright laws for artists that their work could be replicated and sold in many copies, had a certain logic behind them: that the creators would be incentivized to create new, original works, that if they were published and become successful, they would bring them monetary rewards for a specific period of time. It is crucial that the logic behind the law, was that an artist should benefit from his creations, for a period of time. It is a mental work, that takes time, talent and effort to be created and this should be recognized, by having an exclusive gain for a period of time. Effectively a monopoly. This period was initially 30 years, from the first publication, but this got extended in two ways. (The recorded music came later in the game, when books were already moving from a 30 year copyright period, from first publication, to a 50 year period and later on to a 70 year period.) The laws for books had a second "technical" extension, when the 70 years were no longer after the first publication, but after the death of the writer! The law makers had a new reasoning behind this too. That the children of the authors should benefit from the sales of their parents. But 70 years is a long time, it probably benefits grand children as well.
Now, the music industry took these laws and used them as a blueprint for the recorded music. Bear in mind that until the early 50ies, the shellac medium for music was limited and quite fragile, so it allowed a much smaller degree of profit for the music industry. The music industry made most of its money from selling sheet music and copyright from live performances, radio and a bit later jukeboxes. This of course changed with the coming of the 7'' singles and the LPs, especially from the late 50ies and acts like Elvis.
Now it is very crucial to see that since 2000, the US copyright laws (in the EU there are different laws) have extended the copyright for recorded music, from 70 to more than 100 years from the commercial issue of the recording. (It is known as the Sonny Bono clause, since Sonny Bono, ex husband of Cher and well known composer of many fine songs, became a senator and introduced this law) The only thing that they did not do, is the technical extension that the books got - ie. 70 years copyright after the death of the artist. But I expect them to try to do it eventually, since we just passed one of the golden artists - first recordings Louis Armstrong, while we are getting close to the dates of one of the first geese with the golden eggs, Frank Sinatra and then Elvis and then the Beatles. Who would have thought, that what we considered disposable music, would become so profitable, even 100 years after. Plus the added bonus of samples, that are the building blocks of contemporary music would probably force the record companies to lobby for a further extension.
Sony has been known to rush releasing Bob Dylan unpublished recordings in the minimum required number, and cheap looking editions, to reset the clock of copyright, so they gain time to prepare a more presentable official edition later on. Dylan, has sold his rights for physical editions already. Springsteen did the same and lately Pink Floyd as well.
The Beatles are doing the same reset the clock thing with the new remixes. A new remix is considered a new work and resets the clock. Of course the original mixes and recordings older than 50 years, in the parts of the world that have not followed the US copyright laws, are considered public domain, so you can find them quite cheaply. It goes without saying that one may question the quality of said editions, since the master tapes are still the property of the original company or artist, but still... On the quality matter, after the MoFi scandal a couple of years ago, which in my opinion was more of a technical foul than a quality one, many people's perspective have radically changed. After all how many people can afford to buy records that cost 100 Euros, when their entry level turntable costs as much? But this is another interesting topic for discussion.
A curious thing can be witnessed in some of those cheaper issues. The sleeves are different, because the copyright laws for printed works is still 70 years in EU!
To bring matters to a conclusion, I find the excess of 100 years of copyright, in music, to be not only counter productive for the world, but also a travesty of logic. One can argue that the streaming services (that amount to close to 90% of the music industry revenue) allow people to have access to as much music they have time to listen, yet these streaming services are known to pay very little to the actual artists, even those with millions of streams and also are known to be easily manipulated, to produce profits for artists nobody actually wishes to listen. And the streaming services are law abiding.
So this leaves us with the physical product, which is 5% CDs and 5% vinyl records. With their manufacturing cost actually only going up, for various reasons, stock holders revenue being the main one (Dylan, Springsteen, Pink Floyd etc selling their rights for physical products) , the records are priced as collectibles right from the factory. Who can pay 40+ euros for the latest Taylor Swift album? And as ds1984 correctly notes, as a fan, who can afford to buy all editions to get all the recorded material? Is this a marketing ploy that someone can dismiss by saying:"Nobody forces you to buy it", when exactly said editions target specifically the fans and the fans only? So the recordings that the artist has not decided to issue, probably deeming them not too commercial for a wider audience, should remain unpublished forever? Destroyed? And taking them a step further, never to be recorded? Would this be a loss to the collective knowledge of mankind? Or should we just consider them as merely disposable fun and not care for them, unless there is a financial interest behind them? Is the logic of the copyright a way to prevent information - knowledge to be wide spread, or to award the creator with some financial incentive - by creating a monopoly for specific amount of time?
I am really asking, these are not rhetorical questions.
I think that the corporate greed that we experience nowadays, should make us look at the bigger picture with different eyes. One may ask, that if I was a musician, would I not mind if my work is bootlegged, so I don't gain anything from the sales? ds1984 replies in the part where the artist has no intention of releasing specific recordings anyway. I could say, that these laws direct our whole society to specific ways of viewing the world, our relations with other humans, our very own humanity and logic. And the results are not very promising, with the current way of doing things. So, yes, this is only a tiny flaw in the society machine, and we can not solely blame the copyright, when the whole machine is collapsing. We need a new machine. That will reward the creative people, but not in excess. That will value creativity, but also see the value of everyday productive work. One that values the works of the mind, but also pay fairly for the manual labor. I don't want to sound political, I just write these, in order to emphasize that the ever expanding copyright laws, in all aspects of life, from copyrighting seeds, genes, to extending copyright of computer programs, useful patents, down to music, literature and photography, are taking their toll on society and are a part of the bigger problem, because they twist fundamental logic. The ones that gain from them after all are only shareholders. Even the musicians are not benefited on average. Only a few very prolific and successful composers. The rest are on the losing end as well, working from day to day to make ends meet.
