The Open Rights Group (ORG) has produced an analysis of the
figures used by the Commission itself to conclude that the move is
designed to benefit the music industry and not, as Commissioner
Charlie McCreevy asserts, performers.
The ORG figures show that all but the top 20% of earning
performers in the music industry can expect to earn between an
extra 59 cents and €26.79 a year under the extension from 50 to 95
years.
Record labels, though, will earn an extra €200,000 to €4.1
million a year each under the new scheme, it said. "Now at least we
get to the heart of the matter that this is a windfall for record
labels," said ORG's research.
McCreevy, the internal markets Commissioner, has backed the
extension to 95 years, saying that it would provide players with an
income to the end of their life. The move would bring the royalties
available to performers more closely in line with that of writers,
who receive payments for 70 years after their death.
The Commission's stance has been criticised as being adopted in
the face of evidence that a term extension does not make economic
sense. An academic who undertook research into the issue on behalf
of the Commission accused it of ignoring the evidence and being
swayed by lobbyists for the music industry.
Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, director of the University of
Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) and the academic
behind research on term extension for the Commission, wrote an open
letter to the Commission accusing it of "wilfully ignoring"
evidence that did not support its policy.
ORG used some of the same studies relied on by the Commission but
came to a very different conclusion.
It said that the proposal would either cost consumers more or
involve smaller payments to artists. ORG's study said that the
Commission had claimed that market forces dictated that the price
of music would not rise, but that performers would receive higher
payments, but that this was impossible.
"It is logically impossible to have benefits to producers and no
costs to consumers," said ORG's study. "The reality for consumers …
is more likely to be one of significant costs … We believe it would
be fair and proper to assume that more evidence on the cost to
consumers is likely to be forthcoming as more sound recordings
enter the public domain. In the meantime any attempt to extend term
should be put on hold."
When proposing the term extension, the Commission said in a
statement that performers deserved to earn a living from the
records they played on decades ago. "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," it said.
ORG, though, said that granting such a right would not strike
the right balance between creators' and users' rights. It also said
that even if the Commission's aim was justified, the term extension
was a poor way of achieving it.
"It seems unclear why the Commission is so worried about ageing
session musicians living in poverty when there are so many other
groups that are equally, if not more, disadvantaged," said ORG's
analysis. "It is further ill advised to address this problem via an
indirect tax that is regressive and hugely inefficient. As we will
demonstrate, the Commission's proposal will do very little to help
the majority of Europe's recording artists."
ORG's research is part of its submission to the consultation
process of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO), which will
in turn respond to the Commission's consultation.
"The Commission's proposal is flimsy, misleading, and peppered
with contradictions. Our submission asks the UKIPO to reject it in
the strongest terms," said an ORG statement.
UK intellectual property policy has followed the recommendations
of the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property since its publication
in 2006. In it ex-Financial Times editor Andrew Gowers opposed any
extension of the copyright term for musicians.
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
