[A2k] ORG: EC's proposed 45-year copyr ight term extension will result in 80% of performers getting bet ween 50¢ to €26.79 extra per year

[Pranesh Prakash]

Dear All,
The Open Rights Group (in response to the European Commission's
proposed extension of copyright term) notes that "for the vast
majority [80%] of performers the projected extra sales income
resulting from term extension is likely to be meagre: from as little
as 50¢ each year in the first ten years, to as 'much' as €26.79 each
year."

Blog post: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/09/05/performers-likely-to-g=
et-as-little-as-50%C2%A2-a-year-from-increased-term-of-copyright/
Submission to Commission:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/uploads/080829_ukipo_ectermextension.pdf
Commission's proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/term/ia_term_en.pdf
Bernt Hugenholtz's open letter to the EC:
http://www.ivir.nl/news/Open_Letter_EC.pdf

The Ars Technica report on the ORG's submission:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-80-of-artists-would-get-30yea=
r-from-copyright-extension.html

80% of artists would get <€30/year from copyright extension
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-80-of-artists-would-get-30ye=
ar-from-copyright-extension.html>
By Nate Anderson <http://arstechnica.com/authors.ars/Nate+Anderson> |
Published: September 08, 2008 - 09:45PM CT
The EU is considering a plan to extend musical copyrights for another
45 years <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-eu-caves-to-aging-r=
ockers-wants-45-year-copyright-extension.html>,
ostensibly to help out aging performers who are being cut off when the
current 50-year terms expire. But those musicians (can someone
introduce them to the concept of saving for retirement?) won't see
much of the new cash, according to the UK's Open Rights Group
<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/09/05/performers-likely-to-get-as-litt=
le-as-50%C2%A2-a-year-from-increased-term-of-copyright/>.
Most performers will make less than €30 a year, even as major labels
and big stars take far more.

The Open Rights Group, a UK "grassroots technology advocacy
organization," is responding to a request for comments from the UK's
Intellectual Property Office. UKIPO wants to know how it should weigh
in on the EU-wide proposal, and the Open Rights Group's response is
clear: the proposal is a bad idea.

This was also the conclusion reached by a leading European copyright
expert, Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, in a paper actually paid for in
part by the European Commission. (When the Commission simply ignored
the paper in making its policy proposal, Hugenholtz went public with
his astonishment and displeasure
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080827-eu-pays-for-then-ignores-stu=
dy-on-copyright-extension.html>.)

It was also the conclusion reached by the Gowers Review
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061206-8367.html> in the UK,
which took a wide-angle look at intellectual property issues and
concluded that copyright term extensions weren't necessary or
justified by the facts.

In its analysis, the Open Rights Group focuses on one of the key
problems presented by the EU: aging musicians whose royalties run out
just as they become old and infirm. According to the group, a 45-year
term extension is hardly the best way to address the issue.

"The Commission makes much of the challenging financial situation
facing aging performers," it says. "While we do not accept that IP law
is an appropriate mechanism to deal with this situation, as we will
demonstrate in the second section of this submission, it also turns
out to be a very inefficient one."

That's because 90 percent of the extra money generated during the
extended term will go to music labels. Of the 10 percent that goes
directly to artists, eight or nine percent will go to the "top 20
percent of earning performers"—in other words, the most successful
groups, which have already made millions.

--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. However, a
large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.