[A2k] What is truly at stake in copyright term extensions

[Philippe Aigrain]

http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=3D120

by philippe cat.: Europe | biens communs / commons | musique / music |
m=C3=A9dias / media (edit.)

What is truly at stake in copyright term extensions

Let=E2=80=99s return to the proposal to extend performer rights to 95 years=
 in Europe.
The direct economic stakes of this proposal in termes of revenues seem
relatively minor (in macro terms, even the Beatles account for a small
proportion of the musical recording sales). So why are the large music
publishers so keen on it, to the point of accepting -for rallying the
performer rights collective management societies to support the proposal-
that 20% minimum of the profits on sales of older than 50 years recordings
would be redistributed to performers (meaning in many cases their
inheritors). This is because a major danger exists: there could exist a ric=
h
and interesting freely accessible public domain. People could use their
precious time to listen to, exchange on networks, enrich, annotate, analyze=
,
reuse in new creations these public domain recordings. I know: quite a few
recordings that are older than 50 years are not truly freely usable because
of author-composer rights lasting longer. But just those who truly are in t=
he
public domain or soon will be (f.i. traditional music, classical music, old=
er
standards of jazz, blues and gospel, songs, etc.) are enough to create a
basis. This is the devil! Almost as bad as global licensing. It could open
the door to a free exploration of the potential of musical commons, to medi=
a
literacy. Soon moving image would go the same way. The time usage of people
would be partly lost for its predators. What loss of profit than this
possibility of a common wealth!

The article of lemonde.fr (translated by the author of this post, free acce=
ss
limited in time) covering the time extension proposal, consacr=C3=A9 =C3=A0=
 ces
annonces, quotes Patrick Fremeaux, a phonographic producer specialized in t=
he
audio heritage. Here is what he says:

    it will create a cultural diversity desert. I am opposed to the idea th=
at
the economic right would create a moral right that would prevent the
exploitation of the common heritage. One makes a law for Johnny [Hallyday],
the Beatles and [Georges] Brassens. But not for Ren=C3=A9e Lebas or Mahalia
Jackson, not even for [Charles] Trenet or [Yves] Montand who are not
profitable for the majors.