I feel bad about this, but…
So I was reading INTELLECT’s “Convergence Conversations” blog where I sometimes post, and I came across a piece about a nice old chap lobbying for copyright term extension. Basically, he played the violin or something on “Eleanor Rigby” and has been getting some sort of royalty ever since, but it’s about to run out, so he’s lobbying (along with some other musicians) for a change in the law.
Musicians want a fair copyright term – fair relative to other creators
I feel bad for the guy, but as I said in the comments, I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why he should have any expectation of being paid for 95 years for doing his job. He argues that he, as a performer, should get the same “right” as the copyright owner. He may well be right, but I’ve got no idea why copyright is being extended either. As the Open RIghts Group so neatly summarised,
Disregarding the evidence-based findings of their own advisors, the UK government’s independent analysis, and those of Europe’s leading intellectual property research centres, the EU Commission has formally accepted DG Internal Market’s proposal to extend the duration of copyright protection for sound recordings.
Copyright term is a quid pro quo, designed to balance the interests of consumers and creators. Confusing this with contractual issues and pension schemes while ignoring the evidence gives Europeans a raw deal. Europe’s citizens are entitled to more than a privatised cultural heritage.
Quite. The government, which would rather listen to pop stars than to economists, is even ignoring its own review…
Having previously announced that it would adopt of all the recommendations made in 2006′s Gowers Review for reforming the UK copyright system, Burnham last Thursday announced a major shift in UK Government thinking: It will reject one of the Gowers recommendations and accept the music industry’s view that copyright term in sound recordings should be extended to 70 years after their release.
[From DRM Watch: UK Culture Secretary Calls for Music Copyright Term Extension]
Where is this going to end? Oh wait, I already know…
Well done Andy Burnham, you have now sentenced the recorded music industry to death.
[From Music Week - Government signals extension to copyright term]
Indeed. And, by the way, that’s not obviously a bad thing. As Roger McGuinn once observed, “I never received a dime from the Byrds, I don’t see how Napster changes anything.” Reducing the cost of distributing music to zero is a good thing: musicians will earn their money in new ways (performing, composing, teaching, who knows what) and it is record companies who will go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.
It led me to think about something else as well. INTELLECT is supposed to represent the ICT industry. So shouldn’t they be lobbying to REDUCE copyright at every opportunity. Since the economic evidence points to the welfare-maximising copyright term as being something around 15 years, our industry should be putting forward to deal to Big Content: you reduce copyright and we’ll do what we can to help you, but if you keep trying to extend it, you’re on your own.
[posted with ecto]
[...] at it again with I feel bad about this, but… at http://blog.dgwbirch.com/?p=351 [...]