EC proposes extending European copyright

[ghost of miles]

From Variety:

Europe to extend music copyright

EC proposes extension to 95 years

By IAN MUNDELL

BRUSSELS — Plans to extend European performers’ copyright protection from 50 to 95 years will be put forward by the European Commission before the summer.

The aim is to ensure that airplay royalties continue at least for the lifetime of the performer, whether they are stars or unknown session musicians.

Charlie McCreevy, the commissioner responsible, said Thursday that record companies will be required to set up a fund reserving at least 20% of the income during the extended copyright term to session musicians.

For featured artists, original advances would no longer be set off against royalties in the extended term. The artist would get the lot.

The proposals will also contain a “use it or lose it” provision: if a record company is unwilling to re-release a performance during the extended term, the performer can move to another label.

The commission judges that its plan will not have a negative impact on consumer prices, and that most of the additional revenue collected would stay in Europe.

[Jim Alfredson]

Cool, now musicians, composers, performers, and the like can continue to not get royalties due to piracy, for 95 years!!!

[Teasing the Korean]

This issue is being brought up on the eve of the Beatles' first recordings approaching the 50 year mark.

Coincidence?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

This issue is being brought up on the eve of the Beatles' first recordings approaching the 50 year mark.

Coincidence?

Hey, in America, it was only extended to protect the MOUSE, so it only makes sense that they'd do it in the EU to protect the Fab Four.

BTW, I've been telling people that this was going to happen at exactly this time for exactly this reason. This should not surprise anyone. Money always talks.

[Ron S]

This issue is being brought up on the eve of the Beatles' first recordings approaching the 50 year mark.

Coincidence?

Hey, in America, it was only extended to protect the MOUSE, so it only makes sense that they'd do it in the EU to protect the Fab Four.

BTW, I've been telling people that this was going to happen at exactly this time for exactly this reason. This should not surprise anyone. Money always talks.

But money can't buy me love.

[RDK]

This issue is being brought up on the eve of the Beatles' first recordings approaching the 50 year mark.

Coincidence?

Hey, in America, it was only extended to protect the MOUSE, so it only makes sense that they'd do it in the EU to protect the Fab Four.

BTW, I've been telling people that this was going to happen at exactly this time for exactly this reason. This should not surprise anyone. Money always talks.

But money can't buy me love.

Maybe not, but it's what I want.

[clifford_thornton]

Life goes on.

[GA Russell]

Don't bother me!

But seriously, I like the "use it or lose it" idea. I have thought for a long while that that is what we should have in the US. It might discourage bootleggers, and it might encourage the owners of the master tapes to spend the money to remaster.

[Swinging Swede]

Will this be retroactive? In other words, will recordings that already have entered public domain be protected again, or will it only affect recordings that still are copyrighted? If the former, it will dramatically change the European reissue scene, since even the earliest ODJB recordings then won't reenter public domain until 2013.

It will not affect online piracy, though...

[Swinging Swede]

The proposals will also contain a “use it or lose it” provision: if a record company is unwilling to re-release a performance during the extended term, the performer can move to another label.

And what if the performer is long dead and gone and the record company is unwilling to reissue the recording? There are not that many performers who will be around say 80 years after the recording was made.

[Teasing the Korean]

Will this be retroactive?

Tomorrow never knows...

[RDK]

It will not affect online piracy, though...

Sure it will - it will increase it tremendously. Or at least it will turn the p.d. stuff that's now being legally sold/traded into stuff that's illegaly sold/traded.

[wordsandsounds]

It will not affect online piracy, though...

Sure it will - it will increase it tremendously. Or at least it will turn the p.d. stuff that's now being legally sold/traded into stuff that's illegaly sold/traded.

Isn't this already the case in America?

[ejp626]

One never knows about these things, but according to EFF (as of Jan 22), the copywright extension had failed: EFF

Today I have good news -- thanks to your phone calls and emails to the right MEPs, the proposal was defeated! The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Danny O'Brien sez,

Just got word from the European Parliament all three of the filtering/copyright extension amendments were defeated or withdrawn in the committee vote. We're still waiting on the official record, but if that's true, it's an amazing victory -- one was originally proposed by the original author of the report, Guy Bono himself, one was voted in by the powerful industry committee, and one was drafted by an EPP-ED member, the largest bloc in the parliament.

We're sure copyright extension, ISP snooping, and any number of foolish policies will pop up again in the EU process or national governments: but together we'll kick them out every time.

[Daniel A]

Will this be retroactive? In other words, will recordings that already have entered public domain be protected again, or will it only affect recordings that still are copyrighted? If the former, it will dramatically change the European reissue scene, since even the earliest ODJB recordings then won't reenter public domain until 2013.

Still, a plain retroactive extension would be problematic one day. Contrary to what I've often seen stated, sound recordings will not automatically move into the public domain in the US 95 years after they were "published". According to the 1972 US copyright act all sound recordings in existence by then were considered published as of February 15, 1972 (as to replace an array of state copyright laws with a federal law) and subject to a 75-year protection.

With the Bono act extension another 20 years were added, so in fact no sound recordings in the US will be in the public domain until February 15, 2067.

Personally, I don't think that is reasonable.

[Claude]

The copyirght extension will not be retroactive, according to the current proposal. It will only apply to those recordings which are still protected at the date on which the directive will have to be implemented by the Member States, i.e. some time in 2010 or 2011.

So everything recorded before 1960 or 61 will remain in the public domain.

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyri...otection_en.htm

Edited September 8, 2008 by Claude

[Swinging Swede]

So Beatles will be protected but not Elvis.

[king ubu]

Elvis is dead.

Bird lives!

[captainwrong]

Interesting study about this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...-extension.html

Confirms what I already thought. Not sure why I care about this so much as I'm in the US. From what I've read, it sounds like the extension is pretty unpopular with the public, but the stuff I read may be skewed. I have a hard time believing the general public takes much of an interest in this kind of stuff at all. Maybe they do in the EU. I know they don't here.

I guess I'm interested to see what happens if the Beatles stuff enters EU public domain (which I doubt will happen.)

[Claude]

It's not a debated issue here, even among music fans. Most people don't know how long copyright lasts and that some music is in the public domain and some not.

The issue is only being discussed by lobbyists and some IP activists. The latter oppose it mainly because of questions of principle and not because of the economic impact on the music buyer, which is minimal.

I find the accompanying measures, which the Commission included to make a more "balanced" package, quite interesting, although I don't know how they will work in practice.

From the explanatory notes of the proposal (bold emphasis is mine)

Article 10a (3), (4) and (5) envisage to remedy the situation that session musicians (musicians that do not enjoy recurring contractual royalty payments), upon entering into a contractual relationship with a phonogram producer, often have to transfer their exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and 'making available' to the phonogram producers. Session musicians transfer their exclusive rights against a one-off payment ('buy out').

The proposed remedy for the 'buy out' is that session musicians will obtain a claim to receive a yearly payment from a dedicated fund. In order to fund these payments, phonogram producers are under an obligation to set aside, at least once a year, at least 20 percent of the revenues from the exclusive rights of distribution, rental, reproduction and 'making available' of phonograms which, in the absence of term extension, would no longer be protected under Article 3. In order to ensure the most granular possible level of distribution to session musicians, Member States may require that distribution of these monies is entrusted to collecting societies representing performers.

Producers' revenues deriving from single equitable remuneration for broadcasting and communication to the public and fair compensation for private copying shall not be included in the revenues to be set aside in favour of session musicians, as these secondary claims are never transferred to phonogram producers. Moreover, producer's revenues deriving from the rental of phonograms shall not be included, as performers still benefit from an unwaiverable right to equitable remuneration from such exploitation, under Article 5 of Directive 2006/115/EC .

Article 10a (6) provides for a statutory 'use it or lose it' clause. Therefore, if a phonogram producer does not publish a phonogram, which, but for the term extension, would be in the public domain, the rights in the fixation of the performance shall, upon his request, revert to the performer and the rights in the phonogram shall expire. Further, if after one year subsequent to the term extension, neither the phonogram producer nor the performer made the phonogram available to the public, the rights in the phonogram and the rights in the fixation of the performance shall expire.

For the purposes of the 'use it or lose it' clause, publication of a phonogram means the offering of copies of the phonogram to the public, with the consent of the right holder, and provided that copies are offered to the public in reasonable quantity. Publication would also comprise otherwise commercial exploitation of a phonogram, such as making the phonogram available to online retailers.

A further purpose of the clause is to ensure that phonograms which neither the phonogram producer nor the performers wish to exploit are not 'locked up'. This also means that orphan phonograms, for which neither the phonogram producer nor the performers can be identified or found, will benefit from the clause because such orphan phonograms will not be exploited by either the producer or the performer. All types of phonograms which are not exploited would thus be available for public use.

This clause has the purpose of allowing performers whose performances fixed in a phonogram are no longer published by the original phonogram producer after the initial 50 year term to regain control over their performance and make it available to the public themselves. On the other hand, the producers' right should expire in order to ensure that the performers' efforts to make their performances available as widely as possible are not hindered.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri...0464:FIN:EN:PDF

[Claude]

EC Copyright Term Directive - an update

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/11/ec-co...ive-update.html