[A2k] extension of copyright - from FT

[Anne-Catherine Lorrain]

--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
See attached final version of the European Parliament ITRE Committee's
opinion on the Commission's proposal for a Directive on copyright term
extension for performers and recording producers (adopted yesterday, 16
December).

***A moral case for extending copyright*

By Andy Burnham

Published: December 15 2008 19:28 | Last updated: December 15 2008 19:28

The length of time that sound recordings remain in copyright is a
controversial subject and for the past couple of years a debate has raged o=
n
whether to extend it from the present 50 years.

Andrew Gowers =96 who led the *Gowers review of intellectual
property*<http://media.ft.com/cms/b30682f8-8531-11db-b12c-0000779e2340.pdf>
=96 suggested it should remain at 50 years but that we should review it in =
the
light of European considerations. Charlie McCreevy, European Union
commissioner, subsequently came up with a different view: that it be
extended to 95 years.

In the light of that, and in view of *Mr McCreevy's
argument*<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f745174-c7ec-11dd-b611-000077b07658.ht=
ml>about
there being a moral case for extending it, the government has been
looking at the issue again. John Denham and I, as the ministers responsible=
,
felt that 95 years would be disproportionately long. But we do feel that
there is a case for extending the term to a period of something like 70
years.

In looking at this, we have tried to strike a balance, while ensuring that
we find a solution that meets the needs of performers.

While Mr Gowers was not convinced of the moral case (as he argued on
Monday), we were, on two important points.

First, there has always been a moral case at the heart of copyright law. If
someone produces exceptional work in their 20s that is still being listened
to 50 years later, it is right that their earnings from it are not suddenly
cut off when they are in their 70s. The argument here is that the person wh=
o
creates a work should be able to enjoy the value of that for the duration o=
f
his or her natural life.

It is a false argument to compare musicians with sportspeople or other
professionals. No one is going to profit from someone winning the 100 metre=
s
decades on from that victory but, in a digital world, radio stations, mobil=
e
phone operators and consumers ensure that music continues to generate
revenue far into the future. Why should performers have to watch others
profiting from their talent and creativity, especially at the time in their
lives when many of them need it most?

Let us be clear, this is not about boosting the wealth of well-known
entertainers. Behind those household names is an army of unsung heroes of
the music business =96 the backing singers and session musicians, as well a=
s
the large number of featured artists who have never made a vast fortune,
whose work continues to be played. Such artists deserve to benefit from
others' use of their products during their lifetime.

Second, it should absolutely be the case that the person who creates a work
has, within their lifetime, control over how their work is used. Should an
artist who is a vegan, for example, have to put up with seeing their music
used to promote fast food burgers? Or the music of an environmental
campaigner being used to promote cars or airlines? I do not think so.

So there is a very clear moral case to extend copyright.

The UK has one of the biggest, most successful and most profitable music
industries in Europe. But it is faced with serious issues, such as on
unlawful file-sharing, and other European countries are looking to us to
lead the way. We need a workable system of copyright to underpin the
long-term health of our creative industries. Mr Gowers's review was a
thorough and thoughtful one and we have taken forward his recommendation on
illegal file-sharing. But on copyright extension we take a different view.

Getting proper benefits to those who create works is an important part of
supporting and maintaining our music industry and it is also the right thin=
g
to do. Let us not forget that the music industry has a rather chequered pas=
t
when it comes to ensuring that income from recorded music is fairly
distributed to those who create it.

We need to find a workable compromise that will balance the interests of
musicians, the music business, those using music in the course of their
business and the music-buying public.

Yes, there are strong views on all sides of the debate, and yes it is a
difficult balance to strike. Everyone will not get everything they want, bu=
t
that is the nature of compromise.

But in finding the right compromise I am clear that, while of course there
are important economic issues to be considered, this is a moral question
that cannot be ignored, as Mr McCreevy was right to acknowledge: one of
doing the right thing by our performers and musicians.

*The writer is secretary of state for culture, media and sport*

*Copyright* <http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright> The Financial
Times Limited 2008

-------

Anne-Catherine Lorrain

Intellectual Property Policy Expert

The******* TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue* (TACD)
Avenue de Tervueren, 36 Bte 4, 1040 Bruxelles, Belgium

***aclorrain@consint.org* <aclorrain@consint.org>

Mob (Belgium): +32 473 99 97 92

Tel: +32 2 740 28 17, Fax: +32 2 740 28 02
***www.tacd.org* <http://www.tacd.org/>

***www.tacd-ip.org/blog* <http://www.tacd-ip.org/blog>
--
X-Attachment-Id: 0.1

[ ITRE_AD(2008)415141_EN.doc of type application/msword deleted ]