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.

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

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

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