Tell your MEP to say no to copyright extension
January 21st, 2009
The European Parliament is currently considering proposals that would dramatically increase – close to doubling – the length of copyright in music recordings. We’d like you to tell your MEP to vote no.
Why are these proposals being pushed? Because copyright in many classic recordings from the 50s and early 60s is about to expire, making them part of the public domain.
What would the effect of the proposals be? The result would be to lock up those recordings for a further 45 years, depriving the public of the ability to reissue and rework those recordings. The outcome will be to benefit the music industry and to injure the public interest. But you don’t have to take our word for it. Here’s what the leading experts in copyright throughout Europe had to say:
Copyright extension is the enemy of innovationSir, Europe’s recorded music was about to experience a wave of innovation. For the first time, a major set of culturally important artefacts was to enter the public domain: the sound recordings of the 1950s and 1960s. Apparently not so. If the European Commission has its way, re-releases and reworkings of recorded sounds will remain at the mercy of right owners for another 45 years. Why?
The record industry succeeded to supply the Commission with evidence that was not opened to public scrutiny: evidence that claims that consumer prices will not rise, that performing artists will earn more, and that the record industry will invest in discovering new talents, as if exclusive rights for 50 years had not provided an opportunity to earn returns.
The Commission’s explanatory memorandum states: “There was no need for external expertise.” Yet, independent external expertise exists. Unanimously, the European centres for intellectual property research have opposed the proposal. The empirical evidence has been summarised succinctly in at least three studies: the Cambridge Study for the UK Gowers Review of 2006; a study conducted by the Amsterdam Institute for Information Law for the Commission itself (2006); and the Bournemouth University statement signed by 50 leading academics in June 2008.
The simple truth is that copyright extension benefits most those who already hold rights. It benefits incumbent holders of major back-catalogues, be they record companies, ageing rock stars or, increasingly, artists’ estates. It does nothing for innovation and creativity. The proposed Term Extension Directive undermines the credibility of the copyright system. It will further alienate a younger generation that, justifiably, fails to see a principled basis.Many of us sympathise with the financial difficulties that aspiring performers face. However, measures to benefit performers would look rather different. They would target unreasonably exploitative contracts during the existing term, and evaluate remuneration during the performer’s lifetime, not 95 years.
We call on politicians of all parties to examine the case presented to them by right holders in the light of independent evidence.
Professor Lionel Bently, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, University of Cambridge; Professor Pierre-Jean Benghozi, Chair in Innovation and Regulation in Digital Services; Director, Research in Economics and Management, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS 1, Paris; Professor Michael Blakeney, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London; Professor Nicholas Cook, Director, AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music, Royal Holloway, University of London; Professor Dr. Thomas Dreier, Director, Centre for Information Law, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; Professor Dr Josef Drexl, Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich; Dr Christophe Geiger, Associate Professor and Director elect, Centre for International Industrial Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg; Professor Johanna Gibson, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Centre, University of London; Professor Dr Reto Hilty, Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich; Professor Dr Thomas Hoeren, Director, Institute for Information, Telecommunications- and Media Law, Münster University; Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam; Professor John Kay, Chair, British Academy Copyright Review; Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University; Professor Dr Annette Kur, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich; Professor Hector MacQueen, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh; Professor Ruth Towse, Professor of the Economics of Creative Industries, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Bournemouth University; Professor Charlotte Waelde, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh
OK, I’m convinced. What can I do to oppose this? The people to contact are the MEPs for your constituency. A full list (with contact details) is here.
So what should I say when contacting them? A petition against these changes has been organised by (amongst others) the UK Open Rights Group and EDRI . You might like to use the text of that petition (slightly modified):
Dear …I am a constituent of yours in … and the question of copyright is important to me.
The European Parliament is being asked to nearly double the term of copyright afforded to sound recordings. Industry lobbyists suggest that extending copyright term will help increase the welfare of performers and session musicians. But the Term Extension Directive, which will be voted on by the Legal Affairs Committee in a few weeks’ time, will do no such thing. Instead it will hand millions of euros over to the world’s four major record labels, money that will come direct from the pockets of European consumers. The majority (80%) of recording artists will receive between €0.50 – €26 a year.
Helping poor recording artists is a commendable aim. But the Term Extension Directive insults these good intentions. Andrew Gowers, former editor of the Financial Times, who conducted an independent review into the intellectual property framework for the UK Government in 2006, has called it out of tune with reality. Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, who advises the European Commission on intellectual property issues, has called it a deliberate attempt on behalf of the Commission to mislead Europe’s Parliament. If passed, the Term Extension Directive will have serious consequences for Europe’s IP policy.
* Any extension of copyright term will take money directly from consumers’ pockets. It will also consign a large part of Europe’s cultural heritage to a commercial vacuum.
* Europe’s leading IP research centres have clearly shown the proposal does not do what it purports to do – help the poorest performers. It is simply a windfall for the owners of large back catalogues and the top earning performers.
* The proposal will undermine public respect for copyright law and introduce an unworkable and unproven framework for copyright, at the very time when Europe’s copyright framework needs to be at its most robust.I therefore ask you to vote to reject this directive.
Yours sincerely…
So when should I contact my MEP? As soon as possible – attempts are being made to fast track this measure through before public opposition grows.
Entry Filed under: Intellectual Property
7 Comments Add your own
1. dhardy | January 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
i am not clear on this at all. i feel that the original copyright owner should of course retain copyright. why should it be otherwise? why should that right of ownership be taken away from them, if they wrote the songs?
2. bade | January 21st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
@1 the new act is design solely to benefit RIAA,IRMA, BPI, IFPI
akka
Sony music
Sony BMG
EMI
Warner
Universal.
Those label want to continue to make their billions from exploitation artists and Screwing Consumers.
also the Artist in question have already enjoyed their fair share from term of copyright and will not benefit from an extension.
public domain will allow it to be used freely by anyone with out them needing to pay a member of IFPI,IRMA thousands of euro in royalties.
EG singing happy birthday in public is illigal and can lead to lawsuits from warner If caught.
public domain you free to do this.
it all above Profit and Preventing access to content
3. Administrator | January 21st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
@dhardy – The fundamental issue is one of freedom of expression. Copyright is not a form of property in the conventional sense, but rather the ability to prevent others from saying (or singing!) certain things without permission or payment. The deal struck by the law is to encourage people to produce by giving copyright, but by restricting the term of the copyright to a certain period. Why does this matter? Think about how artists have always built on past work. Elvis built on musicians before him; Disney has retold age old stories. But with what is now becoming a perpetual copyright the music and other industries are denying their successors the same freedom.
4. bade | January 27th, 2009 at 5:09 am
this videos sums up the reason against it nicely
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=kijON_XODUk&eurl=http://torrentfreak.com/org-to-host-copyright-extension-roundtable-090124/
5. Me | January 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Here’s a reply I got from Gay Mitchell
Dear
I support this directive because it comes to bring solutions to two problems for European creativity:
Distortion of competition with the other important zone for music: the USA (95), Australia (70 years), Brazil (70 years), Chile (70 years), India (60 years), Peru (70 years) or Turkey (70 years), the USA (95 years);
To allow performers to enjoy their rights during all their lifetime;
We are perfectly aware of the critics which have been put forward by academics lead by Mr Bentley. Yet, I consider that the Commission has answered in an appropriate way to these critics.
We can easily answer one of the criticisms they make, namely, this directive will be only in favour of producers, and consumers will be paying for the majors.
First of all, if performers would get no benefit out of it, we would not have got the numerous letters and phone calls from the organisations representing the performers.
They will benefit because:
They will be able to use their moral rights during their lifetime, that means to have their word to say about how their creation is exploited and presented to the public; for instance they can object to the song being included in a commercial.
All performers also receive airplay royalties from the broadcasting of music over the air, and from public performance of music in bars and discotheques. These royalties are not assigned to the record producer but managed by collecting societies.
They will also receive copyright levies (in the countries where the system exists) during their lifetime; the levies are also not assigned to the record producer. Together, levies and equitable remuneration amount to 95% of performers collecting societies’ income.
They will benefit from the clean slate clause, which has been introduced by an amendment (Mr Toubon in JURI, Mrs Hennicot in ITRE), and which allows performers to receive their full royalties during the extended term no matter what the producers paid them in advance when the contract was signed;
Eventually, they will benefit because producers of phonogram will be encouraged to do the marketing of the recordings made in the 60s and 70s. And because the record industry is a portfolio business, the ensuring revenues will contribute to A&R spending on new talent. The producers spend in average 17% of their benefits on new talent.
Thus this is the minimum we can do for performers who are facing a particularly difficult situation at a time the music industry is particularly weak.
Moreover, I am in favour of the transitory measures which are an important part of the directive and strike the right balance between the interests of performers, session musicians, producers and consumers.
Indeed, to ensure that records are not “locked up” in archives and are made available online, the “Use it or lose it clause” will compel producers to commercialize the phonogram, online and offline. If they don’t do it, the performers will have the chance to do it, if the performers do not do it, the rights on it will disappear. This measure will improve the access to phonograms for consumers.
For session musicians, the creation of a fund for which all producers will contribute is very important. When a producer sells a phonogram for which he would not have had the rights anymore if there had not been an extension of the term, he will pay 20% of the gross revenues generated by this sale to a fund for session musicians. This ensures that the lowest earning performers benefit from the proposal. The Commission estimates that the average earning of a session musician would increase from between € 46 and € 737 to between € 130 and € 2065 per year. These may not appear to be huge sums of money, but for session musicians, they make a big difference.
Yet, the session musicians consider that this fund will be a real benefit only if the producers contribute with 20% of the gross revenues they earn with the sale of the phonogram. If the amendments of the several EPP and UEN members are accepted, the producers will be allowed to deduce administrative and marketing costs related to the commercialization of the phonograms. The measure will become toothless: first, the deductions will reduce the payments to, in effect, around 5% at the most; second, there will be no means to control the accounting on which deductions are based, and the enforcement of the measure will be subject to endless litigation and disputes.
Thus I think it is necessary to:
· Support this directive;
· be ready to find a compromise for the length of the extension between the Commission which wants 95 and the UK government which wants 70 years;
· We should oppose firmly the amendments which would make the directive unbalanced and for the sole benefit of producers of phonograms;
Kind regards,
Gay Mitchell MEP
6. barry | February 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
Kathy Synnot reply –
Good news!
There was a meeting in the European Parliament on Tuesday, 27 January entitled ‘Sound Copyright: Which way for the EU?’. At this meeting, there was a strong indication, although not final, that this Directive might be dropped as it faces opposition everywhere it goes. You are having an impact! I will be more specific about this when I can and will get back to you with further information. There is, however, a separate piece of legislation up vote in the mini plenary session on 19 February. I have attached the most current available copy of this for you to examine. Keep up the pressure!
Thank you,
Kathy
She attached -
14.10.2008 (2008/2121(INI))
DRAFT REPORT
on the Commission report on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
Committee on Legal Affairs
Rapporteur: Manuel Medina Ortega
7. Tom O'Drisceoil | February 20th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Indiscriminately increasing the copyright for all sound recordings to 95 years seems to me a tad impractical. While I fully support the extension of copyright terms to cover a living artist’s life, failing to consider the works of dead artists would, I feel, be somewhat of a mistake.
The works of the composer Edward Elgar, for example, are now all out of copyright (depending on publication date, of course). His estate have had a reasonable length of time to earn from his work, and the time has come for his work to enter the public domain.
However, this directive would mean that recordings conducted by Elgar himself – of works now in the Public Domain – would remain in copyright for another 17 years or so (his last was made in 1932, I think). Given EMI’s disastrous track-record (all of their Elgar re-masterings, save one, have been left go out of print for nearly a decade), it would seem foolish to put the copyright for Elgar’s own recordings back into the hands of EMI. It is thanks to independent companies such as Naxos that some of these priceless treasures that are his own recordings are now, once more, generally available. To take such a treasure away from the public seems (to me, leastways), to lack foresight.
A clause could be inserted, for example, that allows for recordings made by long-dead artists such as Elgar and Holst to remain in the public domain. Or perhaps one that would allow copyright to expire once the holders have left a recording go out of print for a certain length of time (a decade, perhaps?). It is the duty of the public to protect these valuable assets from companies, corporations and coalitions which care immeasurably more for cash than culture.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed