EU to Extend Copyright, Break Royalty Monopolies
Written by Ben Jones on July 17, 2008As we mentioned earlier in the week, EU commissioner McCreevy has been pushing for a longer copyright period for recorded performances. This proposal has now passed the commission and is on the way to the parliament. The upside however, is that the commission also aims to break music royalty monopolies.
The proposal, as we explained on Monday, is simple. Extend copyright by 45 years in order to help ’struggling session players’ earn money when they’re old. It seems a noble principle, and seems to be one that has convinced commissioners, in any case.
Perhaps the biggest incongruity that came from the announcements about it, is the feeling that session musicians, after being paid for the last 50 years for a single days work, need, all of a sudden to get another 45 years of payment.
You can bet the guy that put paper in the printer, that spat out the plans for McCreevy’s house hasn’t gotten paid for the last 50 years. I’ll bet the architect hasn’t either. However there is some reason that musicians, particularly jobbing musicians without the talent or ambition to head off on their own, should be paid for work of decades past. The press materials put out by the commission tries to spin a brave face on this, with the likes of frequently asked questions, and number 7 asks the question we all have:
7. Have performers not earned enough in the 50 years of protection?
Most performers or singers and session musicians start their career in their early 20’s or even before. That means that the current 50 year protection ends when they will be in their 70’s. Current life expectancy in the EU stands at 75.1 years for men and 81.2 years for women and it is usual for persons to live well into their 80’s and 90’s. Once protection has ended, performers no longer receive any income from their sound recordings. For session musicians and lesser known artists this means that income stops when performers are retired - the most vulnerable period of their lives.
Alas, they have overlooked one important fact. When someone retires, they cease getting paid for their work, since they are NO LONGER WORKING. That is what retirement means. If these session musicians haven’t worked since 1967, they have been retired for the last 40 years. Can we look forward to the Commissioner putting forth more legislation allowing nurses, gardeners, factory workers, mechanics, lorry drivers etc. to retire at 30 as well, safe in the knowledge that they will have their money woes cared for?
However, there was not all doom and gloom as a result of today’s meeting. Two other proposals were also passed that were in some way, better for the artist AND the consumer. First, part of the provision of extending the copyright is a requirement dubbed ‘use it or lose it’. It allows musicians to recover their copyrights from labels, if the label no longer wishes to market the recording. If, after a year of no commercial availability, then the copyright will be rescinded. This could be seen as an attempt to force recordings back into the market, but it will remain to be seen how effective this will be, or how it will be enforced. If selling copies only at a small back street shop in a small town would qualify, for instance.
Of course, of greatest interest to us, is the actions to deal with the royalty collection groups. Until now, they’ve had country monopolies. You play a song in public, and as long as it’s under copyright, you’ve had to pay a fee, regardless of the artist wishing the collection group to do so. As the final shake up of copyright reform, the national franchises such groups have enjoyed (like cable TV companies) will be broken up, and artists will be able to sign with any agency they desire, bringing about, the commission hopes, competition.
However, none of this is binding yet, as it has to be approved by the Parliament. It is worth noting however, that the proposal document lists the history behind the proposal. That in 2004, they issues a call for comments, and later had meetings with certain stakeholders. Stakeholders in the EU context means businesses involved with the subject, not citizens. Tellingly, the proposal itself lists where it seems to have gone wrong
Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account
Responses in favour of term extension came from performers’ associations, the recording
industry, collecting societies, music publishers, performing artists and music managers. Those
against term extension were telecoms, libraries, consumers and public domain companies.
The arguments of those against term extension were addressed in the analysis of impacts of
the various options.
• Collection and use of expertise
There was no need for external expertise.
From first looks at the impact study, it would appear that it only concerned itself with those who have created and published music in the 1950s and 1960s, and the cost difference between public domain, and copyrighted music. A study that had it’s conclusion written into the brief, and hardly representative of the real facts.
Euro-sceptics have disliked the EU for years, and with the increasing evidence that, in this case at least, commissioners are being lead by their wallets, rather than by common sense and the interests of Europe, it’s a sad state of affairs for a body described as “the only body paid to think European”. Clearly, ‘European’ is a euphemism for ‘greedy’, or possibly ’short-sighted’.
Previously: YouTorrent Relaunches with 67,170 Legal Torrents
Next: UK File-Sharers and the “Wireless Defense”
33 Responses
That is extremely clever.
50 is way too much in the first place
This is bloody ridiculous
This is very strange
This is the 4th post
Promoting competition and breaking the monopolies is a step towards what we are seeking.. but extending the copyrights is not.
If only people actually WANTED freedom.
This is it!
This push to extend copyright terms during this decade was often predicted many years ago.
Did anyone really believe that the recordings of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and other classic artists from the ’60s would ever be allowed to lapse into the public domain?
No, copyright will continue to be extended — again and again and again — as long as there is still money to be extracted from old works.
The “use it or lose it” provisions are meaningless because in the digital age, all the back catalogs of music ever recorded can easily be made available over the internet for virtually no cost.
Oh, and all this talk about needing longer copyrights to support performers who have supposedly not had a job in over 50 years is pure BULLSHIT. The labels, not the artists, own the copyright. The artists, at best, only get a few pennies on the dollar of the royalties paid to the record companies. That’s assuming that they get paid at all - these companies are legendary for their gall at cheating artists out of everything they earned.
‘European’ is a euphemism for ‘greedy’, or possibly ’short-sighted’.
I thought it was American not European! :-)
the one-hit wonder paying machine…LOL!(^_^)
Well the EU is a load of rubbish, england was nuts to sign up… we pay the EU by the bucket load and get even higher levels of immigration in return.
@9 “bringing about, the commission hopes, competition.” If you can’t beat them - join them :P
If I fit a toilet in someone’s house do I expect them to pay me a fee every time they go for a piss or a crap for the next 95 years to help my pension ?
The lazy bastards can do the same as everyone else - when you get paid put part of it away in a pension plan.
Patents are only 20 years for FFS on investments than can cost billions !
Oh for god’s sake, moaning that the EU parliament is greedy etc is such rubbish. Most of the people who will vote this in will have NO FINANCIAL GAIN from this bill. Yes, they have been suckered in my the pathetic ’session musicians will DIE otherwise’ argument, but you have to admit that on first glance it does appear convincing?
Calling them greedy is like blaming the judge in most of the torrent shut-down cases, if the case for the opposition is not made well, the opposition will ALWAYS LOSE.
Instead of just bitching here, go out and write to your MEPs. This bill has been very cleverly presented as something that looks like no-one loses, and unless we encourage them not to, MEPs will vote accordingly.
MEP will vote what they WANT anyway, regardless of our complaints.
France & Netherlands voted “NO” for the EU when they had thier referendum. What did they do? Change the constitution so the people didnt have a vote anymore!
Ireland anyone? They voted “NO” so u think this is it? Hahaha, yeah right, there will be ANOTHER vote & and another until the EU get the VOTE they want.
Oh loooooooooook at the UK, the We WILL be joining the EU even tho we had a HIGH court case still on-going!
EU Sux Balls.
Now watch this: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ and then tell me i’m paranoid.
Remind me, why are we still in the EU? The organization that is committed to protectionist trade against anyone who isn’t a member. The largest barrier in the world to free trade and a truly globalised economy.
And now an organisation run by authoritarian bureaucrats who’s sole job is to think up retarded bills.
“Once protection has ended, performers no longer receive any income from their sound recordings.”
Completely incorrect.
Once protection has ended, performers no longer receive royalties.
They can still receive money from fans. Or any other means which may be indirectly related to their music.
“If, after a year of no commercial availability, then the copyright will be rescinded”
But were in the age of the internet, where it cost near-to-nothing to eternally host a mp3 file for commerical sale and no Record Company wants to ever give up their rights!
If you truely want to help artists, make it so they hold the copywrite and lease that right to the Record Companies for no more than a year at a time.
I certainly like the use-it-or-lose-it provision and wish the USA would adopt it. So much music, software, etc is in copyright limbo where the copyright won’t expire in my lifetime but the works have been abandoned and are not available. There’s a black hole in culture as a result.
As for elderly session musicians: (a) I thought session work was work-for-hire where you got paid once and (b) aren’t most EU countries wellfare socialist states? Why do they need 45 years of money from recordings when they have state pensions? Will this reduce the tax burden in EU countries?
This Intellectual Property Whoredom has gone way to far. They’ll keep passing this sort of bullshit and there’s nothing we can do to stop them, so I say Torrent freely, torrent often and if it gets to trial demand a jury of your peers who will tell Lawyer Sleazegbaggo and Judge Pedo to get the f*** out of our lives. As for that punk at MediaDefender, we only have his word that none of the CP he claims to police has found its way into his home. These guys make me puke.
The planet would be better off if EU commissioner McCreevy hanged himself, or sucked on a shotgun. I don’t care as long as he doesn’t see the sun again.
@ Anonymous 15 :
“Most of the people who will vote this in will have NO FINANCIAL GAIN from this bill.”
-> directly on top 5 of “2008 internet’s funniest comments”
“Clearly, ‘European’ is a euphemism for ‘greedy’, or possibly ’short-sighted’.”
Please don’t take that sentence the wrong way… this nearly only applies to companies and politicians, not the the usual european…
(Since I am one myself, and all else than that, I really dislike this being said generally about europeans, since it sounds like it applies to everyone…)
None of these laws are good enough, they can go f*ck themselves, this will make no difference with my downloading.
Nice try, but its either the sensible way or the torrent way. Period.
And what is also important to note, is that in the FAQ the commissioner himself answers that performing artists earn 38 % of their income from their share of the private copy compensation. If they really earn that much from the compensation why do they still have the right to sue private copy arrangements like BitTorrent sites?!?
the EU is a waste of time, there just scared of how powerfull we the U.S are. who cares what they vote, what America decides is what will happen. europe just likes to think it has some power to make descions.
” 21 Jul 17, 2008 at 13:34 by Anonymous
@ Anonymous 15 :
“Most of the people who will vote this in will have NO FINANCIAL GAIN from this bill.”
-> directly on top 5 of “2008 internet’s funniest comments”"
Jesus, what is the point in commenting if you havent got a clue about the way politics works. The “they’re selfish money grabbing power-hungry wankers” argument is really only fit for use by neanderthals. Most MEPs will not gain financially from passing this bill. It might suit your paranoid delusions to believe every single politician is corrupt, but its frankly BULLSHIT.
“MEP will vote what they WANT anyway, regardless of our complaints.”
Hah, that’s such an apathetic useless view.
Gee I wonder why session musicians are so poor. Could it be that the record companies pay them next to nothing?
@27
Agreed. Nothing happens unless people actually do things - what people have in their heads is useless unless it is translated to action.
The problem is that whilst those big companies have the power of propaganda, those file-sharers have no ability to get their message out there.
It’s no surprise that the industry would be pushing for copyright extensions right now. The current 50 year mark would place things at 1958 so very shortly one of the most popular, creative and vibrant periods of music (the 1960’s) will be slipping away from them. The music of the 60’s is very much a major cash machine that they are not willing to lose without a fight.
<i>Did anyone really believe that the recordings of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and other classic artists from the ’60s would ever be allowed to lapse into the public domain?
No, copyright will continue to be extended — again and again and again — as long as there is still money to be extracted from old works.</i> — 99
My general cynicism suggests this comment probably hit the nail on the head.
Look at the list of ‘for’ & ‘against’. LOL, how can that not be totally obvious? Nothing new here, all about money and who stands to gain it as usual.
you got it correct
this is not about securing revenue for artists
this is about securing revenue for the media cartels
anybody really believe the current media cartels will exist in 10 years time?
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.