RSSEU parliament to debate copyright term extension this week
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 15, 2008, 10:05 PM
To high-ranking European Commissioners, it's a matter of whether a major European industry should be given the same tools for success the US currently has. For academia, it's a debate over whether copyright benefits or hurts artists.
Almost a decade ago, the US Congress passed a copyright term extension act named for the late, popular congressman, and one-time musical superstar, Sonny Bono. It extended the term of copyright in this country to 70 years beyond the life of the author, or 95 years for anonymous works -- essentially, pieces of art copyrighted by a rights management firm or agency rather than a person.
The huge majority of copyrighted works fall into that latter category. Because European copyright is currently not as strong, the foundation of the intellectual property industry in America is perceived to be stronger, especially by the Europeans. Today, a proposal from a popular EU commissioner -- maybe not Sonny Bono, but certainly a familiar fixture on national newscasts lately -- will be debated by the European Commission, according to US trade weekly reports citing sources in Brussels.
The objective of Commissioner Charlie McCreevy's proposal is to extend the basic term of copyright throughout Europe to 95 years, putting the continent's copyright law on a par with the US.
Think of it like a vote to instantly, automatically extend the power and influence of a country's major industry -- like a vote in the Pennsylvania General Assembly to wave a wand and restore its steel mills -- and you'll get a feeling of what opposition to this measure must look like to a European commissioner.
But the opposition presses on nonetheless, led in recent days by the Director of Great Britain's Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management, Bournemouth Professor Martin Kretschmer.
In a letter to the President of the EC last month (PDF available here), Prof. Kretschmer wrote, "This Copyright Extension Directive, proposed by Commissioner McCreevy, is likely to damage seriously the reputation of the Commission. It is a spectacular kowtow to one single special interest group: the multinational recording industry (Universal, Sony BMG, Warner, and EMI) , hiding behind the rhetoric of 'aging performing artists."'
In an effort to show support for recording artists and musicians as opposed to the recording industry, Comm. McCreevy's proposal states that copyright holder agencies who fail to register their extension of copyright beyond the current 50 year cap, will see their rights forfeited to the original musicians.
But in an examination of potential impact of copyright law extension attached to his letter, Kretschmer's team wrote, "We find that artists' earnings are primarily a matter of contract, not copyright. Advances and royalties for record sales depend on the terms of the recording contract. Empirical studies consistently show that only a small percentage of artists are able to control their contracts. According to collecting society statistics, the top ten percent of artists account for between 80 and 90 percent of total earnings.
"We have seen no evidence that living artists as a whole would benefit decisively from an extension of exclusive rights held by record companies," reads another section of the examination. "The benefits will fall to those who need it least: already wealthy performers, and their estates and record companies. In fact, in as much as innovative musicians are users of existing recordings, their artistry will be hindered, not enabled, by extension."
There are some commissioners who back the statements of Prof. Kretschmer and others, though it will be interesting to see how prominently these individuals play in the upcoming floor debate.
@Paul
actually no, this is the important paragraph...
"This Copyright Extension Directive, proposed by Commissioner McCreevy, is likely to damage seriously the reputation of the Commission. It is a spectacular kowtow to one single special interest group: the multinational recording industry (Universal, Sony BMG, Warner, and EMI) , hiding behind the rhetoric of 'aging performing artists."'
Score: 0
Download and share Creative Commons works only, let those greedy beasts die!
Score: 0
Extend the copyright term because lawyers are not getting enough of your entertainment budget.
Score: 0
This is where the U.S. has circumvented the constitution to begin with... copyright was set to a reasonable length originally, (which has stood up under scrutiny even to this day by research that states the effective copyright limits should still be such) and this whole idea of "intellectual property" has gotten to be way overblown.
Copyrights and patents do nothing to advance humanity, only to stifle progress and line the wallets of those concerned for an inordinate amount of time.
It's time the constitutionality in the US of the Bono act was challenged, and bring things back into the line of sanity.
Once you're dead, your works should be public domain. PERIOD. You can't do anything with that income once you're dead.
Please don't come at me with 'what about their estate, children, etc' because that argument is not going to hold weight. Your children shouldn't be raking in money up to 70 years after your death because you wrote a jingle. Everything doesn't boil down to the almighty dollar/rupee/sheckle/euro/pound/whatever. There's more to life than wealth.
Score: 0
What do you propose for bands (i.e. groups of artists?) when they *all* finally pop their clogs it then goes public domain?
Let's take Jeff Buckley as an example of an artist.
He died at 30. He had a girlfriend. Should she, after having gone through the traumatic period of his death have to face having no income now that his music has automatically gone in to the public domain? At the time of his death he wasn't all that famous or rich either. It wasn't until ~4 years later that he became famous.
I think there should be *some* payments still after death, but not for nearly as long as it is currently.
Score: 0
"But in an examination of potential impact of copyright law extension attached to his letter, Kretschmer's team wrote, "We find that artists' earnings are primarily a matter of contract, not copyright. Advances and royalties for record sales depend on the terms of the recording contract. Empirical studies consistently show that only a small percentage of artists are able to control their contracts. According to collecting society statistics, the top ten percent of artists account for between 80 and 90 percent of total earnings."
That's the important paragraph here.
Score: 0
Yup. It's good to see the EU still has an educated elite speaking up and doesn't simply bend over for the economic elite. At least when it comes to the commercialization of art.
Score: 0
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzz
Score: 0
Unless, you are interested in Software copyrights!
Score: 0