![[logo]](http://tartley.com/wp-content/themes/barthelme/images/sitelogo.png){kind=small}
tartley.comThursday 19 March 2009
Dear Baroness Ludford, (Update: This was sent to all eleven of my MEPs)
I am writing with reference to the European Parliament’s vote on copyright extension for sound recordings, due to take place on March 23rd.
As you know, this is a complex issue, but I shall try my best to keep this short, I know you must be busy.
Amongst the justification for this particular extension to the term of copyrights, is the idea that artists need more protection, particularly towards the end of their lives when their income from royalties might dry up as their copyrights expire.
This is misleading in the extreme. Under the current 50 year term, an artist recording at age 25 will be protected until age 75, and any artist who records throughout their lifetime will be protected until many decades beyond their death.
There is no need whatsoever to extend the term in order to benefit or incentivise artists.
In fact, as everyone knows, artists in practice almost never end up owning the copyrights to their own works – the labels do. While artists and labels are aligned in the desire to sell as many records as possible, they are in direct opposition when it comes to dividing up the proceeds. The majority of the income from sales goes to the labels, because they have such an overwhelmingly dominant position of power in the relationship. No label is reliant upon any individual artist, while every artist is very much dependant on their label, to whom they are tied by contract for many years. Strengthening copyright only strengthens the position of the copyright owner, ie. the labels, at the expense of what little leverage the artist may have. Extending the term of copyright only enhances the labels’ income, not the artists.
It is not the role of copyright to be a protectionist measure to support labels who are having to adjust their business models in these times of great change. The last thing we need to do is to construct laws which chain Europe’s creative industries to last-century modes of operation, at precisely a time when the current tumult will reveal as yet undreamed of exciting new ways of doing business.
As you know, copyright is intended to stimulate the creation of new creative works, by enabling the artist to earn an income from their own creations.
There exists significant evidence to suggest that stronger copyright may actually inhibit the production of creative work, by allowing monopoly-level profits to be reaped from ever smaller amounts of creative output. The composer Verdi is notable for suddenly decreasing his creative output when copyright laws over music were introduced in 18th century Italy – his personal correspondence indicates that he simply had to work less because he was earning more from his earlier compositions. (note that he retained copyright over his own work.)
Similarly, there is the very vital and oft-overlooked influence of the creative environment which our society fosters. It could well be that freedom to borrow and build upon inspiration from other artists is a vital input to the engines of creativity, and to encourage fledgling artists. By way of anecdotal evidence I say it would not be very controversial to suggest that the last great English composer of the Baroque period was Handel, who coincidentally died around the same year copyright over music was introduced in England. After that, there is a dearth of truly top-class composers from England, right up until the 20th century. Meanwhile Germany, too preocupied with invasions and reforging of the nation to introduce copyright laws over music, went on to produced greats like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, in a succession of creative gear-shifts which formed the romance and classical eras, all done with no copyright over music. *1
I apologise if I have been unable to express my points very succinctly, but I hope I have made given you some reasons to consider rejecting this extension of the copyright term, or at least to consider assessing it in the light of evidence over its theorised effects, rather than the deliberately misleading suppositions put forward by those representing the special interests who stand to directly benefit from the proposal at the expense of artists and of the rest of society.
With all my gratitude and respect for the work you and your fellow MEPs have done and will continue to do to resolve these issues,
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Hartley
*1 See this February 2009 Harvard paper which notes:
“An attempt to determine the impact of legal changes on entry into composing is inconclusive. The paper shows, however, that a golden age of musical composition nevertheless occurred in nations that lackedcopyright protection for musical works.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1336802
The paper is summarised persuasively in an online news article here:
{ 2 } Comments
A response from the Conservative Party’s Syed Kamall, in which he notes with regret that he cannot vote to repeal the copyright extension, due to the Conservative Party’s official policy in favour of stronger copyright. He then goes on to echo some fairly lame-sounding justifications for this policy (including some that I believe I clearly refuted the credibility of in my original letter) put forward by his party’s authority on such matters.
- – - -
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in replying.
While I am personally concerned about the proposed extension, David Cameron last year announced that Conservative Party policy is to support the extension of the copyright term for sound recordings from fifty to seventy years.
On the European Commission’s proposals I have contacted my colleague Malcolm Harbour MEP who is the Conservative spokesman on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. He understands that issues surrounding copyright extension are controversial and the level of copyright, and copyright term, are matters that have been of importance to policymakers over the last decade. He has actively followed and been involved in the debate and is of the opinion that Copyright is extremely important because it is the way artists are rewarded, businesses make their money and invest in the future.
He believes that we need a copyright framework that is both flexible and accessible and the Commission proposal meets many of these requirements. He says that in the digital age, music is readily available online and copyright provisions need to take account of market changes. He thinks that extending the term of copyright to ninety-five years is essential if we expect performers and the music industry to carry on investing, innovating and creating and it is only right that they are given greater protection for their investments.
Mr. Harbour notes that in economic terms, the copyright extension would also be beneficial. In a Price Waterhouse Report, it was shown that an extension could boost the lagging music industry by £3.3 Billion over the next fifty years. He points out that the extension would also address the distortion of competition between the United States and the EU. At a time when creative industries based on intellectual property are generating an increasing percentage of GDP in the EU, he believes that the current disparity between the term of protection in the EU and the US clearly puts British record companies and performers at a competitive disadvantage. Mr. Harbour says that the extension to ninety-five years would therefore help the competitiveness of British music industry in the global marketplace.
Furthermore, Mr. Harbour tells me that a significant gap between the length of term of protection in the EU and the US facilitates piracy, particularly in the online environment where technology enables recordings in Europe to be transmitted over the Internet to countries where recordings are still in copyright.
Mr. Harbour believes that the extension would also improve the social situation of performers, who he feels have been disadvantaged by the existing fifty year term which often does not cover their lifetime. He says that while composers have benefited from a term of copyright that extended to the composer’s life and seventy years beyond, performers have been disadvantaged but he believes that this new proposal brings parity to those involved in the music industry.
Mr. Harbour believes that the UK has a very strong music industry and that safeguards must be put in place if we are to maintain our position in today’s marketplace. Mr. Harbour feels the copyright extension is a first step in this direction and should be supported.
However, I hope that the debate will continue. I recently met with the Open Rights Group who are opposed to extension and will be talking to them again to see if we can make the case for no extension.
Thanks again for having taken the time to write to me.
Regards,
Syed
SYED KAMALL
Conservative MEP for London
http://www.syedkamall.com
Response from Jean Lambert, Green Party, containing nothing but stout common sense. (i.e. agreement with me)
- – - -
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for writing to me about the Copyright Term Directive. I have not worked directly on this Directive, as I do not sit on the legal affairs committee. However, I have spoken to my Green Group colleagues and our legal affairs advisers.
I am pleased to inform you that Greens will not be supporting the extension of copyright for performers from 50 years to 95 years. While we are in favour of the principal of providing additional income to older musicians, we do not feel this Directive will accomplish this aim and are concerned about its other possible impacts.
Experts have pointed out that it could reduce access to our cultural heritage. In particular, the replaying and use of the vast broadcast archives in Europe could face new barriers, as the orphan works problem is likely to be exacerbated.
Those supporting the extension have suggested that the proposals will make a positive contribution to cultural diversity by offering incentives to record companies to digitise niche cultural works. However, by the Commission’s own admission, the record companies are likely to concentrate on reissuing high earning material. In fact, studies show that these works are more likely to be preserved once they enter the public domain than by the copyright holders themselves.
If the Commission is serious about addressing the issue of older musicians’ lack of financial security (although why it should single out this particular profession is unclear), it would be more pertinent to examine the situation of contractual terms between performers and producers, or a social insurance scheme, rather than extending the copyright term.
If you would like more information on the Green Group’s position please visit our website at: http://www.greens-efa.org.
Yours sincerely,
Jean Lambert MEP
Green Party Member of the European Parliament for London
{ 1 } Trackback
[...] tartley.com : Letter to my Member of European Parliament … [...]
Post a Comment