Sucks.

Thanks to my introduction into the effects of copyrights on the music industry (thank you higher education.) I can now see the implications of something as monumental as this.

(I'm trying to decide if this knowledge is either a good thing, or something terrible)

On one end of the copyright issue, if the copyrights on the songs fail to extend past the current 50 years, (thus ending in 2013) the Beatles and Rolling Stones libraries would be commonplace, and thus available to anyone. This would further the music's exposure in the world (not to mention it's likely impact on advertising revenues). However, if the bands' remaining members and their estates succeed in extending the copyright duration, it would most likely affect the whole of the UK copyright market. This would be especially true if they were aiming to extend it to 95 years. This would bring the UK inline with the US laws and (like here with the Sonny-Bono copyright act) inevitably change the entire music industry with its effects on royalty payments.

Tough stuff. I'm curious to see how this all plays out. I'm all for the bands to continue getting paid for the usage of their songs (considering that it is their work, and they are entitled to a share) However, when it comes to copyrights, there are lines that are drawn that are hard to cross or redraw without a ripple effect on every art form they protect.

NME.COM - News - Bands lose battle to extend copyright on their songs