UK copyright extension scam

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kevin Marks <kevinmarks () mac com>
Date: April 21, 2006 4:28:29 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: UK copyright extension scam

For IP if you like from my blog http://epeus.blogspot.com

In the UK, the copyright term on sound recordings is set at 50 years.  
It's been this way since 1911, but suddenly, with the Gowers Review  
coming up, there is an orchestrated attempt to get it extended. The  
record labels (who will get a huge windfall if this happens) have dug  
up Cliff Richard to plead poverty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4917550.stm
> According to the singer, many musicians recording in the 1950s rely  
> on their copyright payments as a pension.
>
> "It seems terribly wrong that 50 years on they lose everything from  
> it."

Now, copyright is a tradeoff, whereby a monopoly of limited duration  
is granted to the creator to exploit the work, after which it passes  
to the public domain. The thrust of the record labels' campaign is  
that artists don't make enough money from these recordings to save  
for a pension. Letting the labels continue to pay them a tiny  
fraction of revenues for another 45 years, when the sunk costs were  
accounted for 50 years ago makes no sense at all.
Louis Barfe attacks them on these grounds:
http://www.louisbarfe.com/muscop.htm
> To extend the copyright period in sound recordings would make an  
> already complacent industry even more unbearably smug, and give a  
> clear signal that they can get exactly what they want if they whine  
> loud enough. The losers will be the artists who continue to have  
> their back catalogue sat on by the fat corporate arse of the record  
> companies, the small record companies who have made available  
> numerous archive recordings that have passed into the public domain  
> (which would almost certainly not be made available any other way),  
> and, of course, the general record-buying public.
>
> I’m a reasonable man. Here’s a counter proposal: Record companies  
> can have copyright for as long as they want, as long as they make  
> their entire archives commercially available in some shape or form  
> at a reasonable price. Until then, no sale.

However, this concedes too much. The labels are trying to have it  
both ways here. In a digital world, the back catalogue can be  
released by simply digitising the songs and putting them up for sale  
online. The investment needed is tiny, and certainly doesn't justify  
conceding any more monopoly rights.

The labels' traditional pitch to musicians is that they have huge  
advantages in marketing and publishing through their marketing and  
connections, their economies of scale and skilled professionalism,  
which justifies them keeping over 90% of revenue.

If this is true, why are they so afraid of competition?

With 50-year-old recordings, the production has been done, and the  
distribution costs can be made tiny with online digital sales; even  
CD pressing is orders of magnitude cheaper than it was 15 years ago,  
let alone 50. If the recordings are set free, others can publish  
them, including the original musicians, and keep more of the revenue  
for themselves. After all Magnatune pay a 50% royalty on Creative  
Commons licensed music.
http://magnatune.com/info/model

The question to ask the labels is, if copyright expires on a  
recording, will you cease to sell it, or will you just cease to pay  
royalties to the musicians?

Looking back 60 years, a big artist then was Vera Lynn - and her  
recordings seem to be abundantly available in the UK.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ 
index=music&field-keywords=vera%20lynn

So, are the labels still paying her royalties? Or are they pocketing  
the money themselves?



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/