Record labels bid to extend music copyright

Hack McNally Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:40:28 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

This Friday is the second reading of a private members bill to increase the length of time recorded music can be kept under copyright. Extending copyright beyond 50 years would increase the record labels's profits by around 2% per year, but it wouldn't benefit the vast majority of working musicians, and it would cost the record buying public at least £240m per year.



The Bill has been proposed by Pete Wishart of the SNP, but it might as well have been written by the major record labels.  What's more, several of the MPs who officially supported the Bill have received free tickets and hospitality from the music industry, so they're hardly impartial on the subject.

In fact, the Government has already looked at this issue - in 2006 they commissioned former FT editor Andrew Gowers to look at all aspects of intellectual property, but he came out against any extension of copyright on hard, economic grounds.  His independent report, backed up by several Nobel prize winning academics, found that
extending copyright by 20 years would have a net cost to the UK economy of at least £155 million per year. There would also be a total cost to music consumers of £240-£480m, and a significant negative effect on the UK balance of trade.

Fortunately, all it will take to stop this unecessary and damaging bill is for one Labour MP to stand up on Friday 14th March and call out "object" when it comes up for second reading.  Tell your local Labour MP to do the right thing, and stop this money grabbing assault on the general public and the UK creative industry by the major record labels.

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Record labels bid to extend music copyright | 2 comments (2 topical)

Re: Record labels bid to extend music copyright (#1)

by repub on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:32:22 PM GMT

You say "extending copyright beyond 50 years would increase the record labels's profits by around 2% per year, but it wouldn't benefit the vast majority of working musicians."

But I thought this was something the Musicians Union supported?  


Re: Record labels bid to extend music copyright (#2)

by rwendland on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM GMT

Because this is about extending performers rights, not that of the original composer/author, this is a more complex situation.

A performance usually involves many musicians (maybe hundreds), wheras composer/author rights are ususally limited to one or two parties.

The question is, which performers should benefit from the 20 years extension? eg session musicians usually signed-away their 50 years of rights. So should this new extra 20 years go to the original individual performers, or to whoever they signed away 50 years of rights to? Should the big-name artist or publisher get the extended session musician rights for free?  Complicated in several ways - divvying up these extra 20 years of rights could easily mean only lawyers benefit! In practice, for allbut the most popular performances, it might be so complicated no use would be made of the 20 years; but it would block third parties selling the music made in the meantime because of the legal difficulties. The net effect could usually be no benefit to anyone, and blocking playing the music for another 20 years.

The EU proposal for this was that record companies set up a fund for the small rights-holders, with at least 20% of it reserved for session musicians. The Musicians' Union liked this proposal.

I don't know how this private members bill tackles these difficult issues. As there is an EU directive proposal being worked on, it seems an odd thing for a private members bill now.


Record labels bid to extend music copyright | 2 comments (2 topical)