Good news, everybody. Well, mainly for recording artists who took out generous pension packages during their professional peak who like feeling smug. Bad news for anyone else in the world of recordings. Probably not quite as catastrophic as some of those quoted yesterday implied, but certainly not good news.
As reported at the top of yesterday's Daily, our shiny new government has just announced its intentions regarding the planned overhaul of intellectual property laws, but those plans involve very little overhauling of the recorded music copyright which, as much previously reported, the record industry had hoped to have increased from its current fifty years. That's not a complete surprise because the previously published Gowers Report on copyright, a report commissioned by now Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his last job as Chancellor Of The Exchequer, concluded that there was no justification for an extension of the copyright term, even though it is so much drastically less than the 'life plus seventy years' copyright term enjoyed by songwriters and music publishers. A subsequent report by a Parliamentary Select Committee disagreed, proposing an extension to at least seventy years, which raised hopes in the record industry that perhaps the government would press ahead with a term extension despite Gowers. But by the start of the week that seemed unlikely, and yesterday their position on the issue - ie no extension - was confirmed.
As reported yesterday, Geoff Taylor, chief of the record label trade body, the BPI, criticised that position, and pledged to keep on fighting for a longer term, saying in a statement: "This was a test of Government support for British music which it has failed. Ministers appear to have selective hearing on this issue - they have ignored the views of artists and their union, managers, record labels and now even a Parliamentary Select Committee. Opposition MPs and many Labour backbenchers understand the value of fair copyright and support term extension. We will continue to put forward the strong case for fair copyright in Europe. It is profoundly disappointing that we are forced to do so without the backing of the British Government".
Speaking for musicians, meanwhile, John F Smith, General Secretary of the UK's Musicians' Union added: "We are disappointed that the government has not accepted the advice of the Select Committee, but will continue to press for an extension to the period of protection for performers' rights both domestically and in Europe".
Fran Nevrkla, the boss of the UK's recording royalties society PPL, said: "This is a massive disappointment from the government and flies in the face of cross-parliamentary advice and wide-ranging research to extend the term of copyright protection for sound recordings. When there is so much talk about the importance of the Creative Economy it is totally illogical to ignore the discrepancy in the duration of copyrights and dismiss the enormous cultural and economic contribution that the performer community and the record industry as a whole have made to this country over many decades".
Speaking for the indie sector, Alison Wenham of the Association Of Independent Music said: "It seems unjust to deny UK musicians and record labels the same lifetime benefits from their work that other creators enjoy in both the music industry, and in other creative industries. The huge enjoyment derived by fans, of our great legacy of recordings, will cease to earn the artists who made them a penny. This has to be wrong while they are still often reliant on those earnings".
While speaking for the global music community, John Kennedy of the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry added: "The UK is a world-beating source of great music, so it is frustrating that on the issue of copyright term the government has shown scant respect for British artists and the UK recording industry. Some of the greatest works of British music will soon be taken away from the artists who performed them and the companies that invested in them. Extending copyright term would promote vital investment in young talent and new music, all of which will help to secure the UK's future as an exciting music market".
Of course, screwing even more money out of the general public for recordings they more than recouped on decades ago is the one thing that brings record labels and recording artists together. Oh hang on, no, that's wrong. Of course, securing a fair income for those who contributed to and funded our country's musical heritage is the one thing that bring record labels and recording artists together. Yeah, that's it. And that means that high profile artists were all ready to line up with the industry exec types to criticise the government's copyright stand yesterday.
The Who's Roger Daltrey, whose early recordings will come out of copyright in seven years, told reporters: "Thousands of musicians have no pensions and rely on royalties to support themselves. These people helped to create one of Britain's most successful industries, poured money into the British economy and enriched people's lives. They are not asking for a handout, just a fair reward for their creative endeavours".
Singer Joe Brown, meanwhile, said: "This is a very disappointing non response which adversely affects the intellectual copyright of all UK recording artists, orchestra members and session musicians not to mention the legitimate record companies. The UK film industry is protected in a much greater way as are recording artists and musicians in the vast majority of other countries of the world with similar recording industries - one wonders why our government feels that we should be punished".
Perhaps we should set up a system whereby every songwriter, with their life plus seventy years royalties, adopts one of those poor pensionless recording artists, and then all would be fine. No? Ah well, given that this is really a Europe-wide issue, I guess some full on Euro-lobbying is in order. The majors should get IMPALA on the case - they're good at that.