The Gowers Review recommendation that copyright protection for sound recordings shouldn't be extended past its current 50 year duration has come under heavy resistance from the music industry, which has launched a 'fair play for musicians' campaign in response.
The campaign
The campaign is coordinated by PPL, the music industry service company, which said performers were angry their work could be exploited in their lifetimes without them receiving anything for it. Fronting the campaign is an advert run in yesterday's Financial Times, representing a petition endorsing the campaign and calling upon the UK Government to support the extension of copyright in sound recordings from 50 to 95 years. More than 4,000 musicians have signed the campaign, including big names such as Bono, Sir Paul McCartney and Robbie Williams, and it is cited to be on behalf of over 3,500 record companies and 40,000 performers. Good to see Timmy Mallett is back in the game and also signing the petition.
The British Phonographic Industry supports the campaign and is of the opinion that the failure of the Gowers Report to recommend extension of the term of copyright in sound recordings is a 'missed opportunity'.
Not everyone's singing from the same hymn-sheet
Not everyone agrees with the BPI. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce was quoted in the FT as praising Mr Gowers for resisting the 'special pleading by a number of already wealthy pop stars' to lengthen the copyright term, seemingly supporting the recommendation not to extend the term on a 'rich get richer' philosophy.
... but most people are
On the whole , general consensus in the industry seems to be that the recommendation not to extend the copyright term is a huge failing. The view is that it's not just the big fish who will lose out on royalties; there are also plenty of lesser known musicians relying on the protection afforded by copyright, which entitles them to royalties that provide a significant chunk of their income. The view is that it is these people who would really benefit from an extension in the term.
But what did Gowers actually say?
As Information Overlord reports, Gowers dismissed the argument that the lengthening the copyright term to make it the same as that in the USA would result in more royalties giving the following argument:
"In the EU, the term of protection for sound recordings and performers’ rights is harmonised at 50 years. During this period, rights holders receive royalties for almost all public performances of their work. In the USA, the term of protection is 95 years, but under the Bars and Grills Exception around 70 per cent of eating and drinking establishments, and 45 per cent of shops, do not have to pay royalties to performers. In the USA, performers only receive royalty payments when their music is played on digital radio, while in the UK all radio performances carry royalties. If the system in the USA was the same as that in the EU, estimates suggest that European rights holders would receive royalties of $25.5 million per annum for the broadcasting of their recordings in the USA. It is therefore possible that the total royalties received in the EU is no less than, and may even be more than, those received in the USA".
Will Gowers' logic prevail or will behind-the-scenes lobbying lead to the copyright term being extended anyway? All we can say with certainty at this time is that the debate is far from over.
(Note: We're still chewing over the Gowers Review so more stories to come...)
Comments