EU Competition Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has tried before to
increase the term of copyright protection for performers but has
previously lost the argument. The EU's commissioners have now
decided to propose a Directive, though, extending the term from 50
to 95 years.
"I am committed to concentrate all necessary efforts to ensure
that performers have a decent income and that there will be a
European-based music industry in the years to come," said
McCreevy.
Opponents argue, though, that sound recordings of 50 years' old
or more should be released from copyright in order to benefit all
society. They say that extending copyright terms will only benefit
the players on the very small portion of 50-year-old recordings
that are still available to buy.
"Major record labels want to keep control of sound recordings
well beyond the current 50-year term so that they can continue to
make marginal profits from the few recordings that are still
commercially viable half a century after they were laid down," said
a statement from Sound Copyright, a group of rights activists that
lobbies against the extension. "Yet if the balance of copyright
tips in their favour, it will damage the music industry as a whole,
and also individual artists, libraries, academics, businesses and
the public."
"A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face
when they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in
their 20s would lose protection. They will continue to be eligible
for broadcast remuneration, remuneration for performances in public
places, such as bars and discotheques, and compensation payments
for private copying of their performances.
A proposal from the Commission can only become a Directive once
it has been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of
Ministers.
The Commission said that it did not believe that the move would
prevent sound recordings from dropping in price because it said
that evidence showed there to be no difference between the prices
of music that is in copyright and music that is out of
copyright.
The writers of music and lyrics have their copyright protected
for 70 years after their death. McCreevy has also proposed a change
in law which would ensure that that protection ran from the death
of the last surviving author. Some EU countries operate separate
terms from the deaths of individual co-authors.
Critics claim that the move will keep music out of the hands of
remixers or other artists wishing to use it to create new sounds.
The Commission, though, said that music which was neglected would
pass into the public domain.
"If neither the record producer nor the performer shows any
interest in marketing the sound recording within a year after term
extension, the sound recording will not be protected any longer. It
will be freely available for public use," said the Commission.
The Treasury-commissioned Gowers Report on Intellectual Property
of 2006 has been the basis of UK intellectual property policy ever
since. Author Andrew Gowers, the ex-editor of the Financial Times,
told OUT-LAW Radio last year that he had considered and dismissed
term extension and had, in fact, considered reducing it to below 50
years.
"Our conclusions were roundly criticised by the music industry
in particular for actually doing the non-revolutionary thing of
leaving the status quo in place, i.e. 50 years' term protection for
sound recordings," he said. "I could have made a case for reducing
it based on the economic arguments."
"We certainly considered it, and if you look at the report that
came from the academics that we commissioned to examine the
arguments and examine the evidence they also argued very robustly
that 50 years could be arguably more than enough," said Gowers. "In
the end we took the politically prudent course," he said.
The Commission, though, said that it did not agree with Gowers'
analysis. "As [the Review] reasons against copyright extension
based on economic analysis alone, the Commission feels that this
cannot be the whole story," said a Commission statement. "The
Commission believes that copyright represents a moral right of the
performer to control the use of his work and earn a living from his
performance, at least during his lifetime."
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
