So, the record industry started the week with rumours that the British government were considering making the internet service providers take responsibility for illegal file sharing, a move that could seriously cut the illegal distribution of music online, and ended the week with the news that a senior European Union official has come out in support of extending the sound recording copyright term to 95 years - that's a good week. Of course neither of these proposals may end up being actual law, and even if they do, it will probably take two years to bring about any change by which point the major labels will probably have downsized so much they'll all be sharing a small hut in Hammersmith employing between them fourteen administrators and a dog. But hey, let's stick with the positive thing shall we?
So, yes, the European Union's Internal Market Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, yesterday announced he intends to propose an extension to the sound recording copyright in Europe to 95 years. As you all probably know, especially if you're the owner of a sound recording, the copyright term on recordings in Europe is currently fifty years. Those who own such copyrights think this is far too short - especially those record companies sitting on early rock n roll catalogue from the late fifties and early sixties which is all about to come out of copyright, meaning that anyone - me, you, your mum - can distribute or sell those recordings providing they pay the publishing royalty on the songs.
When asked to justify extending the term, the record companies tend not to say this: "Even though we've sold everyone those sixties songs about nine times already, on record, then cassette, then CD, then download, then artist best of, then sixties best of, then sixties best of 2, then sixties best of best of, then cover mount CD, then movie soundtrack, we think we should be able to screw even more cash out of them". Instead those who advocate a longer copyright term for recordings tend to dwell on the inconsistencies between the sound recording copyright and the copyright that exists in the actual song (ie the words and notes), and in any words published in the CD booklet, and the photo on the album cover, all of which have copyright protection for the life of the creator plus seventy years, which is very likely to be at least double the recording copyright.
They may also point out that the recording copyright in the US is 95 years. And they're sure to tell you about all the small time artists and musicians who have ownership of or interests in sound recordings, and who depend on the royalties those recordings generate to fund their crack addictions. I mean, buy milk and pay the rent. The point they'll be trying to make there, of course, is that this isn't just about major multi-national corporations wanting to make even more money out of five decade old investments (though it partly is), but that there are many jobbing musicians who can only afford to do what they do because of royalty payments.
As much previously reported, extending the sound recording copyright term has been a big topic here in the UK of late, partly because all those big early sixties recordings are close to the end of their terms, and partly because of the government's Gowers Review of copyright laws. Though Gowers, as also previously reported, didn't prove too helpful in this matter, recommending to the government that the fifty year term should stay.
That said, there is some support in UK political circles for an extension plus this is really a European level issue (because of the need for "harmonisation across the European free market", and all that gubbins), which is [a] why much of the record companies' efforts in extending the term are now focused on lobbying European level politicians and [b] why McCreevy's comments were important.
Here's what McCreevy said yesterday: "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".
Needless to say, McCreevy's comments were welcomed by the record industry. The boss of the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy, said: "We applaud Commissioner McCreevy for the vision he has shown in keeping creativity right at the centre of the European economy".
The boss of UK recording royalty collecting society Fran Nevrkla said this: "Europe's artists have produced a wealth of glories for all of us to enjoy. By closing this copyright gap, the Commission recognises the unique contribution of tens of thousands of musicians and provides a boost for Europe's future creativity and international standing. We welcome this announcement".
EMI big cheese Guy Hands added: "We welcome today's proposals by Commissioner McCreevy. If implemented, these measures are excellent news for thousands of artists, many of whom rely on income from sound recordings for their long term financial security".
The chief of the Musicians Union, John Smith, said: "This is great news for thousands of musicians. We are grateful that the Commission quickly grasped the issues at stake and acted so decisively on behalf of British performers. We are also indebted to our friends and colleagues across the music industry for their ongoing support in achieving this most welcome of outcomes. This is a clear sign that the music community working together has a powerful voice".
Making the distinction between the two groups who could potentially benefit here - the corporations and the musicians - McCreevy has also advocated a 'use it or lose it' provision in European copyright law which would basically mean that, after the initial fifty years of copyright, performers could gain full control of their recordings if the record label who originally released them refused to make them available to consumers. One of the arguments for limiting copyright terms is that it brings into the public domain recordings that labels own but have not been actually selling. In the digital age, of course, the costs to a label to make recordings in their catalogues publicly available, in download form at least, are much lower, which is why the law may be more willing to force them to do so, with the threat of losing their copyright ownership if they do not (either by complete ownership falling to the performer, or by the song coming out of copyright).
Of course McCreevy's comments are just that, and any change in terms would take sometime to achieve both at a European level and then within the EU's member states. However, support for term extension at such a high level shows the battle to extend the term is definitely not over.