[Upd-discuss] MP Responds on Recording Copyrights

[James Davis]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070209080001000606090204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Here's the response to my e-mail to my MP regarding my concerns over
plans to extend copyright terms. I wrote the e-mail after earlier
discussion on the fc-uk mailing list but I'm cross posting to
creative-friends and upd-discuss as you also may find it to be of interest.

Regards,

James

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Copyrights
Date: 	Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:21:08 +0100
From: 	CRABB, Stephen <CRABBS@parliament.uk>
To: 	<jamesd@jml.net>



James

Many thanks for your email regarding the copyright laws. I apologise for
not replying sooner.

However, I tend to agree with you that the current 50 year period
protects the artists’ interests, whereas an extended time could actually
be to the detriment of the performers. If the artists have already sold
their copyrights to the record company, the expiration of these
copyrights would effectively give them access back to their own work.

I am, therefore, concerned that a possible law extending the period
covered by the copyright will only enrich the record industry, rather
than financially compensate former performers.

I read your email with great interest and I have looked into the issue a
bit further. Indeed, the subject is complex and I can understand both
viewpoints.



Moreover, young performers will not necessarily benefit from an
extension of the time covered by copyright laws.

Mr Peter Jamieson from the BPI acknowledged that only 13% of UK’s record
industry revenues goes into developing new artists. Perhaps, it would be
better to look into ways in which we can redistribute the money within
the record industry. If the money was to be redistributed so that the
promotion of new artists receives more than 13% of all UK record
industry revenues the impact of the entry into the public domain of
great works from the 50s and 60s will be not felt so hard.

Furthermore, the industry’s efficiency and foresight can be questioned
too. If the industry has not maximised profits of their own products for
50 years, we can legitimately question if they will be able to increase
their proceeds in the next 50 years.

What seems even more outrageous is that this new law would be
retroactive. If the industry believes that it is vital for them to have
100 years covered by copyrights then this should only apply to
performers signing away their rights from now on. The copyrights
represent a contract not only between the performer and the record
company, but also between the company and the public domain. In the 50s,
all three sides have agreed to this 50 year contract and it is unfair
that one party change the rules without the other two parties' (the
performers and the public) agreement.

I hope this reassures you. Please keep me up to date on any developments
on the matter. Many thanks again for writing to me.


Kind regards,

Stephen


*Stephen Crabb MP*
/House of Commons/
/London/
/SW1A 0AA/

Tel. 020 7219 6518
Constituency tel. 01437 766425



-- 
http://jamesd.ukgeeks.co.uk/

--------------070209080001000606090204
Content-Type: text/plain;
 name="file:///C|/DOCUME%7E1/JAMES/LOCALS%7E1/TEMP/nsmail.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="file:///C|/DOCUME%7E1/JAMES/LOCALS%7E1/TEMP/nsmail.txt"

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005


--------------070209080001000606090204--