Copyright Term
This page contains material regarding the proposed copyright term extension for sound recordings.
CIPPM Director guest blogs for the Telegraph
CIPPM Director, Professor Martin Kretschmer, recently stood in as guest blogger for Telegraph.co.uk. Taking over from technology expert, Shane Richmond, Martin used his blog to open up the debate on the proposed copyright extension. Posts covered the following topics:
Copyright extension debate: Coming next week
Copyright extension debate: Redistributing from the living to the dead
Copyright extension debate: 'What have you got against Cliff Richard'?
Copyright extension debate: It's time performers' moral rights were strengthened
Copyright extension debate: Musicians should see themselves as part of a continuum of creative endeavour
Joint Press Release by European Academics
The Proposed Directive for a Copyright Term Extension (11 March 2009)
On 23 March 2009, the European Parliament is due to vote on a Directive,
extending the term of copyright for sound recordings. Such an extension, from 50
to 95 years (or perhaps 70 years), will harm Europe’s culture and economy.
A signed press release from key European experts opposing the extension has been released, including: the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM), Bournemouth University; Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL), University of Cambridge; Center in IT and Law (CRID), Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix de Namur; Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg; Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich; Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam; Centre for Intellectual Property Rights, Catholic University Leuven; NEXA Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino.
View the Joint Press Release by European Academics - 11 March 2009 (pdf - 319kb) press release.
Additionally, a list of independent studies and the key signatories opposing the proposed Copyright Term Extension is now available.
Download Independent Studies of Copyright Term Extension (pdf - 150kb)
UK government abandons evidence-based policy: Open letter (24 February 2009)
The UK government has changed its policy on the copyright term, overturning evidence-based recommendations. The letter below, signed by some of the most eminent economists and intellectual property scholars in the UK, voices strong concern about a lack of public legitimacy, and calls on the Government to present any evidence that has led to this change of policy.
Letter to David Lammy (pdf - 114kb) >>
Dear Minister,
Open Letter re. Proposed Copyright Term Extension for Sound Recordings
We are writing because of the sudden, and unexplained, change of Government position in relation to copyright term extension for sound recordings.
In 2006, the Government received the recommendations of an independent and comprehensive review of intellectual property policy, commissioned by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown. The review, led by Andrew Gowers (a former editor of the Financial Times) took "an evidence-based approach to its policy analysis", supplementing a formal call for evidence with commissioned external expertise.
The review examined several extension options, including the increase to 70 years, and explicitly rejected extension as being a bad deal for the UK in cultural and economic terms. The Government, led by the Treasury which was then headed by Gordon Brown, clearly supported this view.
What then occasions a sudden volte-face two years later and only a few weeks after statements from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) indicating support for the original decision? We are not aware of any new evidence that has come to light, and the only independent study available since then, that of Professor Hugenholtz at the University of Amsterdam, has also been highly critical of extension.
There has been some talk of 'moral arguments' for extension but it is hard to discern a compelling 'moral' case for a proposal whose prime effect is to benefit major label shareholders and a few, already highly successful, artists while imposing significantly greater costs on new creators, the general listening public and the custodians of our cultural heritage.
As Gowers concluded, and the Government has until now consistently reaffirmed, policy-making in this area should be evidence-based and designed to promote the broader welfare of society as a whole. Policies that appear to reflect nothing more than lobbying will only perpetuate the "marked lack of public legitimacy" which the Gowers report lamented — and discourage those who wish to contribute constructively to future Government policy-making in these areas. We therefore call on the Government to present any evidence that has led to this change of policy.
Yours Sincerely,
Professor Lionel Bently, and Dr Rufus Pollock, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, University of Cambridge
Professor Martin Kretschmer, and Professor Ruth Towse, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University
Professor Nicholas Cook, AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music, Royal Holloway, University of London
Professor P.A. David, Emeritus Professor of Economics and Economic History, University of Oxford
Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, Chair in Intellectual Property Law, Queen Mary College, University of London
Professor Johanna Gibson, Director Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary College, University of London
Professor John Kay, Chair, British Academy Copyright Review
Professor Paul Klemperer, Edgeworth Professor of Economics, University of Oxford
Professor Hector MacQueen, and Professor Charlotte Waelde, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh
Professor David M Newbery, Professor of Economics, University of Cambridge
Dr Mark Percival, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Chair, International Association for the Study of Popular Music (UK/IRL)
Dr Martin Cloonan, Senior Lecturer, University of Glasgow, ex-Chair, International Association for the Study of Popular Music (UK/IRL)
Professor Danny Quah, Professor of Economics, London School of Economics
Professor David Vaver, former Reuters Professor of IP and IP Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Research Centre, University of Oxford
Richard Chesser, Chair, Trade and Copyright Committee, International Association of Music Librarians (UK/IRL)
Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings: New joint statement (27 October 2008)
In order to assist public debate of the Commission's proposed directive "amending the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights" (COM(2008) 464/3, European academics have prepared another joint open statement. It has been sent to Members of the European Parliament who are currently considering the proposal.
Cover letter (pdf - 278kb) >>
Joint statement (pdf - 281kb) >>
The Proposed Directive for a Copyright Term Extension
Dear [MEP]
We are independent lawyers, economists and music researchers, representing the leading European intellectual property research centres. We unanimously condemn the Commission's proposed directive "amending the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights" (COM(2008) 464/3) as one of the worst examples of special interest pleading. The proposed directive will seriously damage European innovation and creative endeavour.
The Commission is trying to persuade policy makers that copyright extension is cost free. In its Impact Assessment [IA] the Commission claims that consumer prices for sound recordings will not increase, nor will licence fees paid by broadcasters, clubs and restaurants for so-called "air play" [IA, p. 40].
At the same time the Commission claims that extension will deliver benefits to the music industry between "€ 44 million and € 843 million" [IA, p. 60]. Where is that money coming from? The costs have to be borne somewhere. It is shocking that the Commission can fail to acknowledge this basic economic truth. Any serious impact assessment should at least have to answer the simple question: Who is going to pay?
Instead of doing their economic homework, the Commission offers a misleading story about performers facing "an income gap at the end of their lifetimes" [Explanatory Memorandum to Proposed Directive, p. 4; Press releases 14 February 2008 and 16 July 2008]. The language of "artists who lose their pension when they need it most" is copied directly from lobby documents supplied to the Commission by the record industry. Extension is then dressed up as a "social measure".
The most cursory analysis will show that nothing could be further from the truth. Under the current 50 year term, a track recorded when a performer was 25 will be protected until age 75. If the artist continued recording throughout her performing life, the current term will most likely outlast the performer's lifespan. Not a single artist has a life expectancy of 45 years at age 75 – yet this is the extension the Commission proposes. If the Commission really wanted to help performers, it would (i) limit the term to the artist's life, (ii) make such a term not available to record producers (labels), and (iii) look at recording contracts during the existing term. Any independent assessment will show the "ageing performers" argument as a smoke screen.
The chief beneficiaries from extension are:
1. Major rightholder who control a back catalogue of records that reaches back further than 50 years. The four major multinational record companies Universal, Sony BMG, Warner Music and EMI own almost all the key records that would benefit from retrospective extension.
2. Best-selling artists such as Cliff Richard, Johnny Hallyday, and their future estates. Is channelling money to estates a productive measure?
3. Collecting societies who will process increased income either from airplay or a social fund (and take a commission for it).
4. Minor beneficiaries are ordinary working performers. The bottom 80% of performers would each receive between € 4 and € 58 a year (calculation based on Commission's own figures). Some of these benefits however come at the costs of younger performers just entering the profession, as the same pot of money will have to be shared by more artists, many of whom are or will be dead.
The contrast between marginal benefits to ordinary performers, and huge benefits to multinational producers is stark. The costs of copyright extension will be borne by European society as a whole through higher prices and licence fees, stymied innovation, and hindered diversity.
In order to facilitate informed democratic debate, we have prepared
- specific independent responses to the Commission's Frequently Asked Questions template
- 4 page analysis of key economic data
- a list of academic submissions opposing term extension
On behalf of the signatories given below:
Professor Martin Kretschmer, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM), Bournemouth University
Professor Lionel Bently and Dr Rufus Pollock, Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL), University of Cambridge
Professor Reto Hilty, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich
Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam
Creativity stifled? -
Why copyright term extension for sound recordings is a very bad idea
EU internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy has announced his intention to extend the European copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years. Leading European academics have reviewed the empirical evidence on copyright extension, and ask the European Commission: How could locking up recorded music for another 45 years possibly benefit a creative and innovative society?
Following a meeting at Bournemouth University in May 2008, key research centres signed a joined open statement, opposing extension:
- Professor Lionel Bently, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, University of Cambridge
- Professor Michael Blakeney, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London
- Christian von Borries, Composer, Producer, Conductor, project lead "Music about music", Berlin
- Richard Chesser, Chair, Trade and Copyright Committee, International Association of Music Librarians (UK/IRL)
- Dr Martin Cloonan, Chair, International Association for the Study of Popular Music (UK/IRL)
- Professor Nicholas Cook, Director, AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music, Royal Holloway, University of London
- Professor Johanna Gibson, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Centre, University of London
- Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam
- Professor John Kay, Chair, British Academy Copyright Review
- Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University
- Professor Hector MacQueen, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh
- Professor Charlotte Waelde, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh
Related Links
|
