EU copyright under attack again

Nereffid

(Already posted on emusic)

A couple of years ago, the record industry fellated enough MEPs to get the copyright period on sound recordings extended from 50 to 70 years in a blatant attempt to preserve their profits on Beatles records. Fortunately the proposal didn't get through the Council of Ministers because a group of countries blocked it.
Unfortunately Denmark has now apparently switched sides so the proposal could be effectively rubber-stamped. A Swedish MEP (member of the Pirate Party) is trying to use a procedural rule to at least get the issue sent back to parliament for a new debate. He needs 40 MEPs to support this move.
If, like me, you have been enjoying the gradual influx of now-out-of-copyright (and out-of-the-hands-of-the-major-labels) recordings on emusic, then please contact your MEPs to ask them to provide their support.

Go to http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/copyright-term-extension-you-can-help-stop-it - they'll provide a form letter that they'll send to the relevant people.

Nereffid

Update on this:
It's pretty certain that the 70-year law will be approved next week.
via here

So it will be 2032 before anyone in Europe can legally sell a copy of something released in 1961.
In 2032, will anyone even want to twist again like they did 71 years earlier?

Bad Thoughts

Do you know what will happen to recordings that are already public domain? Will they remain there?

Nereffid

As far as I know, it won't operate retroactively.

Germanprof

Loosely related frustration: tried yesterday to download a free track from Amazon.de. Was told I was not allowed to because of regional restrictions on sale of MP3s. I'm used to this with tracks for purchase - basically means if you teach German in the US you have to spend lots of money getting CDs shipped because you are not allowed to pay to download things from Germany (but it's apparently legal if I buy it on a physical medium and then rip it to my computer from that). So now I am not allowed to download a free promotional track from Europe because by getting it for free in the US I might be ripping off the record company even though it is not being sold in the US. Go figure.

greg

I'm not at all suprised by the extension. Beatles recordings would otherwise start becoming available next year with Love Me Do in the Autumn. There has been a lot of pressure for this from the music industry not least by the two Apples - Beatles label and of course the owners of itunes!. It'll be interesting to see what happens to stuff already out of copyright from 1941 to 1961

Nereffid

Of course lawmakers assure us with deepest sincerity that this isn't about the Beatles.
No, no, it's to ensure that session musicians get a pension.
Which is ironic given that everyone else's pensions are completely screwed.

greg

Which is ironic given that everyone else's pensions are completely screwed

Too true!!

No, no, it's to ensure that session musicians get a pension

But if they were paid a decent rate to start with, so that they could pay into a pension scheme this would not be an issue. In general overall I tend to agree with longer copyright. It ought to last at least sufficiently for a lifetime. If only they would tie it in with much needed improvements in other aspects of copyright over this side of the Atlantic.

greg

The changes to copyright in Europe have now gone through

On Monday, the EU Council voted to extend the copyright on sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. The move follows a campaign by artists like Cliff Richard as well as lesser-known performers, who said they should continue to earn from their creations. Critics argue that most musicians will see little benefit, with most income going to big stars and record labels. The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.

Under the 50-year rule, the copyright on songs by The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who would have expired in the next few years. That would have meant that anyone could have used and sold those songs in any way, and the performers and record labels would have ceased to receive royalties. Rolling Stone Mick Jagger told the BBC that the EU's decision was "obviously advantageous" to musicians.

"Obviously the record business is not what it was, so people don't earn as much as they used to," he said. "[The royalties] can extend their lives and the lives of their families who inherit their songs."

Abba star Bjorn Ulvaeus added that one benefit was that he would retain control over how his compositions were used in the future. Bjorn Ulvaeus said the ruling would stop Abba's songs being used in adverts without permission "Now I won't have to see Abba being used in a TV commercial," he said. "And the thousands of lesser-known musicians around Europe who are enriching our life and culture can get the fair reward in return for their work that they deserve."

Announcing the ruling, the council of the European Union said: "Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime. "Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes."

The new law also includes a number of provisions designed to ensure that musicians see a fair proportion of the extra income, including a fund for musicians who signed away their rights when a recording was made. The fund will be financed by record labels, who put aside a percentage of the benefits they get from the prolonged copyright. There is also a clause to allow performers to renegotiate contracts with record labels after 50 years. And artists will be able to regain the rights to a recording if their label has kept it in a vault and not made it available to the public.

John Smith, general secretary of the Musicians' Union, said it was a "brilliant moment". "We were having to deal with quite old people who were saying: 'My music's been used for something else - it's been sampled, it's been used in a pop song, it's been used in an advert.' And we couldn't do anything for them."

Geoff Taylor, head of the BPI, which represents record labels, added that the ruling would "ensure that UK record labels can continue to reinvest income from sales of early recordings in supporting new British talent".

The move comes five years after the government-backed Gowers Report into copyright rejected the arguments for an extension.
It said change would would "negatively impact upon consumers and industry", noting that the average level of royalties paid to performers from sales was "very low". It also cited research by the University of Cambridge, which suggested that the benefits to artists would be highly skewed in favour of "a relatively small number of performers of successful older works".

In May, another government-commissioned report by Professor Ian Hargreaves said the effect of an extension to copyright would be "economically detrimental".
Jim Killock, executive director of the campaigning organisation the Open Rights Group, said there was "never any evidence it was going to do any good".He said: "It puts money into the pockets of big labels. It's unlikely to benefit smaller artists and it will mean that a lot of sound recordings that are out of print will stay out of print."

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14882146

Germanprof

"[The royalties] can extend their lives and the lives of their families who inherit their songs."

Clearly Mick Jagger knows something about the effects of copyright that the rest of us don't. Someone should tip off those American longevity magazines.

Nereffid

I love this:

Abba star Bjorn Ulvaeus added that one benefit was that he would retain control over how his compositions were used in the future. Bjorn Ulvaeus said the ruling would stop Abba's songs being used in adverts without permission "Now I won't have to see Abba being used in a TV commercial," he said. "And the thousands of lesser-known musicians around Europe who are enriching our life and culture can get the fair reward in return for their work that they deserve."

He's rather missing the point that one major reason someone would use an Abba song in an advert is that Abba songs are immensely popular and millions of people have already paid him to hear them. And do we need a lesson in ethics from a man whose song "Waterloo" trivialises the 72,000 casualties of that battle? *
Besides, Bjorn's surely a poster-child for the idea that short copyright terms encourage continued creativity. What's he done lately? "Mamma Mia", for pete's sake. God forbid that anyone else should be allowed come up with such an idea.
As for all those thousands of lesser-known musicians, what he should be saying, in keeping with the new law, is not "who are enriching our life and culture" but "who enriched our life and culture 50 to 70 years ago".



* yes, yes, of course my tongue is in my cheek. On the other hand, when are we likely to hear a similarly upbeat pop song called "9/11"?