Personally, aside from the sometimes excessive profits made by some companies at the expence of the recording artist..., I have no problem with songwriters receiving royalties - actually, I'm all for it.

BUT what I REALLY object to is the continuation of copyright protection after the artist has died. Who benefits? Not the artist. His/her kids - well maybe, but why should they. If the artist was any kind of provider the kids have already been looked after. Why encourage them to not produce anything themselves 'cos it's easier to ride on mom or dad's back?

The ONLY argument I've ever heard that had any merit went something along the lines of: 'If copyright didn't extend past the author's death, what's to stop people murdering the artist in order to get access to their intellectual property when it becomes public domain?'.

In the end, what's to stop them murdering the artist anyway? There are laws agsinst murder, and I don't know about the States, but there are also laws in Australia to prevent (well, lets be honest, intended to prevent - who knows how well they really work) people profitting from crime - including murder...

Patents last 25 years regardless of the inventors lifespan. Why don't they get extended to match copyright? Because the world would grind to a standstill, that's why. No one would be able to develop anything that uses prior art. Of course, that wouldn't stop people in countries that don't honour copyright or patent laws... As an example, look at how knock off textile products affect the original designers (shoes, handbags, clothing etc..)

I just feel there HAS to be a better balance than the current state which really benefits ONLY the recording companies and the lawyers.

Hmm, /rant...

--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya laugh --=--
You're only paranoid if you're wrong!