The flawed proposal to extend the term of copyright protection afforded to sound recordings, robbing consumers in the name of performers but for the benefit of the world's four major record labels, is being fast-tracked through the democratic process. Earlier this month MEPs from the relevant European Parliament committees presented their draft reports at a meeting of the legal affairs committee (JURI), the Committee which will make recommendations to the European Parliament on how to vote on the Directive early next year. They proposed a host of worrying new amendments which threaten to:Weaken further already inadequate measures intended to allow orphan works, and commercially worthless but culturally significant recordings to pass into the public domain (Culture (CULT), Internal Market (IMCO) and the Industry, Technology and Research (ITRE) committees draft reports). Allow record labels to deduct "costs" from a fund intended to benefit session musicians, further shrinking the pot of money made available to performers in favour of labels (IMCO committee draft report). Dramatically widen the scope of the Directive to include audio-visual recording, even though no relevant impact assessment has been conducted into what effect this might have on consumers and follow-on innovators. (JURI and ITRE committee draft reports).
BBC NEWS | UK | Musicians urge copyright change
A video message on behalf of 38,000 UK musicians has been sent to Gordon Brown urging him to back an extension of their copyright protection. The musicians, many of whom have worked with major artists, say they risk losing their income under current laws. Performers' copyright runs out after 50 years but for composers and authors it extends for 70 years after their death.[...] Phil Pickett, a musician who played with '80s band Culture Club, said the amount of money a copyright change would provide musicians was small but important. "Ninety per cent of musicians earn less than £15,000 a year. These royalties are very small but they add up over the years," he said.
A video message on behalf of 38,000 UK musicians has been sent to Gordon Brown urging him to back an extension of their copyright protection.
The musicians, many of whom have worked with major artists, say they risk losing their income under current laws.
Performers' copyright runs out after 50 years but for composers and authors it extends for 70 years after their death.[...]
Phil Pickett, a musician who played with '80s band Culture Club, said the amount of money a copyright change would provide musicians was small but important.
"Ninety per cent of musicians earn less than £15,000 a year. These royalties are very small but they add up over the years," he said.
They are definitely not interested in selling copies of the vast majority of items they hold copyright to, because this would result in less sales of their more recent offerings. So most items will remain unavailable for as long as the copyright persists; nobody will earn anything from these works.
However the public good is reduced the longer the copyright is conferred. The inability to re-issue old stuff, that is the province of small firms will result in an impaired cultural memory and curtailed cross-fecundation.
Incidentally, it becomes more difficult to obtain licenses the earlier the item has been produced (for obvious reasons), resulting in ‘orphan’ works that cannot be reissued until the copyright has expired.
They are definitely not interested in selling copies of the vast majority of items they hold copyright to, because this would result in less sales of their more recent offerings.
You're basing this on what evidence? Factually there's still a very significant market for recordings from the 50s, 60s, and 70s - never mind after that.
It's nonsense to suggest that this will result in lower sales for recent offerings, because there's a huge nostalgia market.
With downloads, the cost of delivery approaches zero. Labels realise that all recordings are potentially valuable. Within five to ten years it's going to be trivial to make any recording ever made, out of print or not, available for download, together with out-takes and alternative mixes.
Humbug:
This is also nonsense. I can think of maybe ten or twenty albums, from my total collection of thousands, which I know are out of print on CD. What's happened in reality is that the music has moved to labels like Cuneiform and Voiceprint, who deal almost exclusively with reissues.
If the music were unavailable, musicians wouldn't be sending petitions to government asking to be included in royalty payments.
Do you think you know more about their economic position than they do?
Nevertheless, I consider your argument fundamentally flawed.
To begin I would like to draw your attention to the fact, often overlooked, that the granting of monopolies and other privileges is more typical of the early modern state which lacked many of the more efficient and sophisticated instruments that we have today.
No sane person would – I dare to say – consider abolishing state financed pharmaceutical research in favour of issuing monopolies to haphazard drug inventions, that would yield rewards more in proportion to popular demand instead of medical need.
If I understand you correctly you plead for the copyright term extension because this would mean somehow greater income for performing musicians later in life. This is in fact the case, but consider the following: the value at the time of the performance of these income is very small, because it will occur far in the future, and it is no so secure. I sum they would get some more tickets for a lottery to be drawn in a far off future. – Not the most brilliant or efficient way of achieving the worthy goal of bettering the lot of ageing musicians, I presume. If what you want is better social security, it is social security that you should demand. – Amusingly your argument is neo-contortionist, say like for commercial TV: you buy a box Persil and then better close your eyes.
On the other hand, your proposal comes with costs that you do not account for correctly, I'm afraid.
A monopoly will reduce output, I think most economists will concur here. in the case of scholarly journals, where the legislator has abolished or aborted open access, extortionist pricing resulted, limiting effective access perhaps even to lower levels than before those recent technological developments which would make it really cheap.
In order to have a flourishing download market, you would have to support Digital Rights Management, which is, however, an evil in its own right.
Consider a parallel development: Technology would permit to build an open archive of all radio emissions, only a tiny proportion of which have any commercial value, but which would constitute a great source of material for many purposes, nostalgic, or intellectual. This is dead because it would compete with archives of the newspapers etc., which therefore can offer their (less important) archives at higher price.
Best regards
[part of my manuscript is illegible – please, excuse any lacunae]
You're assuming - like most of the people who make bold assertions about copyright without knowing the first thing about how the music industry works - that all copyrights are held by giant major labels, and that's all there is to know.
They're not. The reality is that rights assignments are split between individuals, holding companies, other representatives, and major labels - among others. For a typical working musician, the micro-payments add up.
What's your alternative suggestion - that we should pay working musicians even less than they earn already and make them survive on a minimum state pension, because no one should give a crap about their time, effort and talent?
Is that supposed to be a progressive argument?
