EU Commission wants to ban public domain CD reissues

[Claude]

Obviously, this proposal had to come some day, as some big pop/rock hits from the 60's would enter the public domain during the next decade, and the industry is pressuring to have copyright extended.

The "use it lose it" provision seems to be more of a manoeuvre to present it as a balanced proposal.

To enter into force, this proposal would have to be adopted by the EU Commission first (a formality), then have to be approved by the EU parliament and the EU Council (the national governements).

Here's the Commission press release:

"Performing artists - no longer be the 'poor cousins' of the music business" – Charlie McCreevy

Commissioner Charlie McCreevy today announced his intention to propose to the College that the term of copyright protection for European performers be increased from 50 to 95 years. Summarising the main thrust of the proposal, Commissioner McCreevy stated: "I strongly believe that copyright protection for Europe's performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances. I have not seen a convincing reason why a composer of music should benefit from a term of copyright which extends to the composer's life and 70 years beyond, while the performer should only enjoy 50 years, often not even covering his lifetime It is the performer who gives life to the composition and while most of us have no idea who wrote our favourite song – we can usually name the performer."

The Internal Market Commissioner intends to bring forward a proposal to extend the term of protection for sound recordings to 95 years. This proposal should be ready for adoption by the Commission before the summer break of 2008.

If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late fifties and sixties will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years. "I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension", says Commissioner Charlie Mc Creevy in describing the rationale behind his proposal.

"I am determined to ensure that this extension will benefit all artists – whether featured artists or session musicians," the Commissioner says. "For session musicians, the record companies will set up a fund – a substantial fund reserving at least 20% of the income during the extended term to them. For featured artists, original advances may no longer be set off against royalties in the extended term. That means the artist would get all the royalties during the extended term." he adds.

The Commissioner also proposes a 'use it or lose it' provision. That means that, in case a record company is unwilling to re-release a performance during the extended term, the performer can move to another label.

Filling the pension gap

A Commission survey shows that many European performers or singers start their career in their early 20's. Session musicians, who are not a member of a band, often start performing when they are 17. That means that when the current 50 year protection ends, they will be in their 70's and given life expectancy in the EU - 75 years for men and 81 years for women - it is not unusual for performers to live well into their 80's and 90's.

But once copyright protection for sound recordings has ended, performers no longer receive any income from their sound recordings. For session musicians and lesser known artists that means that income stops when performers are at the most vulnerable period of their lives (retirement). They will also not get any payment when their performances are sold on the Internet.

No negative impact on consumer prices

The Commissioner stressed that the proposal should not have a negative impact on consumer prices. "Empirical studies on the price effects of copyright protection show that the price of sound recordings that are out of copyright is not necessarily lower than that of sound recordings in copyright.

No negative impact on Europe's external trade balance

The Commission has also looked at the trade implications of a longer term of protection and provisionally concludes that most of the additional revenue collected in an extended term would stay in Europe and benefit European performers. This is good for promoting Europe's performers and the cultural vibrancy of European sound recordings.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

And some press comments:

EU commissioner backs record biz on copyright extensions (The Register)

Copyright extension will benefit few (Financial Times)

EU Commission wants 95 year copyright on recordings (IP Kat)

Edited February 21, 2008 by Claude

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

i heard european girls are so easy, whatever standards you have for bedding an american, you just lower your standard by 8 and a half and thats the exhange rate

[John L]

Interesting: there are two possibilities here. They could apply this rule to all music retroactively, meaning that millions of already released CDs would have to be withdrawn and destroyed. Or it could just apply to music that is not already in the public domain, i.e. it would protect only music made after 1958. I wonder which it is.

[bertrand]

Forget that copyright stuff, what do you think of chewy's post?

I am gathering up all my Fresh Sound CDs as we speak in case they are recalled to be destroyed.

Bertrand.

[sidewinder]

Forget that copyright stuff, what do you think of chewy's post?

Bertrand.

He is wrong. It is eight and three quarters.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks for posting this Claude - good to see you around again.

There some very odd things in this proposal.

1 Session musicians don't get royalties, do they?

2 A session musician can change labels if EMI won't reissue an album on which he played third violin fifty years ago - so what difference will this make to anything?

3 Ditto for a leader - eg Billy Fury. Who the fuck cares if Billy Fury, whose current performances no one wants to hear (is he alive even?), tries to get a contract with some other label?

4 A musician who started a career at 17 may lose any royalties from that period when he's 67, but not from the rest of his recordings over his working life. As for someone like Billy Fury, who was popular for a couple of years, being able to rely on royalties for the rest of his life on those two years' of work, I can't see any merit in it, whereas there seems to me great merit in the work becoming public domain.

This is a snow job. The Commission has been persuaded by specious arguments of the industry that this is to the advantage of the artists, but of course, it's to the advantage of the industry.

MG

[ejp626]

I think we've already discussed this. My understanding is that all the amendments to extend copyright were voted down on Jan 22, for the time being of course.

[ejp626]

I do see the Feb. date on the press release, but I think the same outcome will occur. Most EMPs do not appear in favor of this copyright extension.

[Claude]

I think we've already discussed this. My understanding is that all the amendments to extend copyright were voted down on Jan 22, for the time being of course.

What vote do you mean? The EU proposal is brand new (there is only the press release, the text itself has not yet been made public) and will have to pass the Commission first, and then will have to go through the EU institutions, where the discussions will take at least a year.

[Claude]

I see what you mean. On January 22, there has been a vote by the European Parliament on a report on the "Cultural Industries in Europe", for which some members proposed to include the wish for copyright extension. These amendements were voted down.

It was just a report. The EU Parliament has no right of legislative initiative.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...-shot-down.html

[ejp626]

I see what you mean. On January 22, there has been a vote by the European Parliament on a report on the "Cultural Industries in Europe", for which some members proposed to include the wish for copyright extension. These amendements were voted down.

It was just a report. The EU Parliament has no right of legislative initiative.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...-shot-down.html

I don't understand all the ins-and-outs (of what appears to be an extremely undemocratic institution), nor do I suspect most Europeans. But I think as a bellwether, the fact that copyright extension was voted down even in a report, means it will be unlikely to make it into EU law.

[Claude]

A parliament cannot prevent the government from proposing a law, but it can vote against the law. Of course it was a signal against the proposal to extend copyright when the parliament did not want to include the extension as a proposed measure in it's report, but these are two different procedures (general policy report/copyright law). The legislative procedure is only starting now.

Another thing to know is that the directive extending copyright would have to be adopted in the "codecision" procedure, in which it needs to be approved by both the parliament and the Council. If the two institutions disagree, a compromise needs to be found.

Maybe that's why McCreevy proposes 95 years, so that in the end the duration will be 70 years

[ejp626]

I don't quite understand why there has to be compromise. If Party A wants X (the status quo) and Party B wants Y, and they can't agree (and indeed have significant philosophical differences), then it seems X is just as valid as f(XY)/2, since party B is actively seeking a change. Leaving things as they are (X) is often the nobler approach, but one that most columnists (and bureaucrats) don't value since it gives them nothing to do or write about.

In the US, X is actually the most common occurence, and there is certainly no expectation that a compromise has to take place. In fact the Senate was explicitly founded on the basis that it would reject much of the work of the House. (This appears even more common in state legislatures where dozens of bills just get bottled up.)

This is one of the main weaknesses (to me) of the UK government, where under certain circumstances the House of Lords can be overturned (something about submitting the same bill three times) with only a sliver of political support in the House of Commons. In the US, such a bill would die and the status quo would remain in place. Now certainly there are ways to break stalements and overturn vetos in the US political system, but they all require super-majorities (and implicitly mass public support) well beyond what is the case in the UK and if I understand it correctly the EU.

Well, I'm sure Fresh Sounds et. al. will find some new location that has weaker copyright laws (if the extension passes) and life will go on. I did note the other day that if you have a ISP from the US, eMusic has started screening out many of the PD offerings they added only fairly recently.

[John L]

i heard european girls are so easy, whatever standards you have for bedding an american, you just lower your standard by 8 and a half and thats the exhange rate

If you are interested in older women, they all go into the public domain in Europe after 50.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

When this passes, it will go down as "The Beatle Rule", just as the US version that was passed was called "The Mickey Mouse Rule".

It's going to pass because there is money being made on early 60s rock and roll. Now that "public domain" is going to start selling, the owners of that copyright are going to start screaming - loudly.

[B. Clugston]

"Sir" Paul needs more money to throw at Heather.

[mikefok]

If they could earn a living or even a good living from music, it doesn't have to take 95 years for them to earn enough. I think the problem now is how to survive or figure out a way to sell music against all downloads in computer age.

[mikefok]

If they could earn a living or even a good living from music, it doesn't have to take 95 years for them to earn enough. I think the problem now is how to survive or figure out a way to sell music against all downloads in computer age.

[Chas]

Since the choice was between the absurd and the truly absurd , I voted "Other" .

Would any of those who voted for the extension care to tell us all how it is that intellectual property monopolies of such duration are good for society when everywhere else monopolies are economically indefensible ?

[Neal Pomea]

"Performing artists - no longer be the 'poor cousins' of the music business" – Charlie McCreevy

If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late fifties and sixties will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years. "I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension", says Commissioner Charlie Mc Creevy in describing the rationale behind his proposal.

"I am determined to ensure that this extension will benefit all artists – whether featured artists or session musicians," the Commissioner says. "For session musicians, the record companies will set up a fund – a substantial fund reserving at least 20% of the income during the extended term to them. For featured artists, original advances may no longer be set off against royalties in the extended term. That means the artist would get all the royalties during the extended term." he adds.

The Commissioner also proposes a 'use it or lose it' provision. That means that, in case a record company is unwilling to re-release a performance during the extended term, the performer can move to another label.

Filling the pension gap

A Commission survey shows that many European performers or singers start their career in their early 20's. Session musicians, who are not a member of a band, often start performing when they are 17. That means that when the current 50 year protection ends, they will be in their 70's and given life expectancy in the EU - 75 years for men and 81 years for women - it is not unusual for performers to live well into their 80's and 90's.

But once copyright protection for sound recordings has ended, performers no longer receive any income from their sound recordings. For session musicians and lesser known artists that means that income stops when performers are at the most vulnerable period of their lives (retirement). They will also not get any payment when their performances are sold on the Internet.

No negative impact on consumer prices

The great thing about this, unless you are a musician or a human being with an interest in history or someone with the slightest objection that maybe there is some way other than copyright monopoly from here to kingdom come to who knows who to provide in some way for our beloved artists, is that you sign away your art and copyright holders will make it unnecessary for musicians to heaven forbid manage your finances and save for your descendants the way everybody else has to. Like the feudal days of yore, the property is owned by generous lords in the music companies and all the musicians and listeners need is provided by their lords in the form of royalties to musicians and permission to the public to listen! Snappy economic arrangement, wouldn't you say?

Edited February 23, 2008 by It Should be You

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Snappy economic arrangement, wouldn't you say?

What's better, though?

MG

[captainwrong]

When this passes, it will go down as "The Beatle Rule", just as the US version that was passed was called "The Mickey Mouse Rule".

It's going to pass because there is money being made on early 60s rock and roll. Now that "public domain" is going to start selling, the owners of that copyright are going to start screaming - loudly.

:tup :tup

[PristineAudio]

This is of course all nonsense cooked up by the big record industry to hold onto Beatles money and the like.

Case 1: A relatively minor 70s artist I know, recorded two albums for Chrysalis that had moderate international success before he was dropped and the LPs deleted. He came to me a few years ago wishing to get them remastered - the vinyl mastering was dreadful, but fortunately he'd made 1/4" tape copies of the masters at the time, and on these the sound was excellent (helped by a top production job and the backing of half the London Symphony Orchestra). He's nearly 60 now and would like to get these out again, perhaps make a little money out of his work. He's written to Chrysalis to ask about privately reissuing his own work - no response. So much for the 'pension' argument - yet the Internet has proved to him that he's still got a substantial worldwide market. He's having to break the law to meet the demand (quietly, of course). No names, I'm afraid.

Case 2: A much younger musician I met 5 years ago, mid-20's, recorded a couple of CDs in the late 90's for a record company that put them out in small numbers, did no promotion, and then dropped them. She had to raise thousands of her own money in order merely to get her music heard on her own label by buying back the masters from the company. So much for keeping the musicians going - and we're not talking session musicians here, but (again) the singer, performer and songwriter.

Back to the 'pension' argument: surely these benign record companies will continue sending royalty cheques to the Beatles et al after the 50 years is over on all sales. (But why have Apple and EMI been in court on and off for 30 years arguing about short payments?) The current ruling doesn't mean that their money will automatically dry up. If there's money in the catalogue - enough to pay the musicians anything - the record companies have the masters and the ability to issue them in such a way as to sell them (again).

The truth is (a) very little sells that's over a certain age in any numbers that are significant or profitable; (b) the session musicians picked up a cheque at the end of the session - none of them were stupid enough to sign up to a 1950s or 1960s royalties deal for playing third triangle on a B-side for Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas; © as has already been pointed out, this is about the record companies squeezing every last drop out of the music of the 1960's - Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Beach Boys - the few artists whose records they can still shift.

And you won't find many session musicians getting rich on that...

[BruceH]

This sounds absurd to me. 95 years???? That's worse than the U.S.

Edited March 1, 2008 by BruceH

[Claude]

No, it would be the same duration as in the US.

http://www.pdinfo.com/record.htm

Maybe you're confusing it with the standard copyright duration, which is 70 years after the death of the author. The performance rights on sound recordings last until 95 years after the date of recording.

I think the EU Commission chose 95 years because that's the duration in the US. Why go from 50 to 95 and not simply to 100?

Edited March 1, 2008 by Claude