Although Andrew Gowers' previously reported government commissioned review of UK intellectual property laws will not now formally publish its report until next week, the media yesterday reported as fact that Gowers will not back calls by the record industry to extend the recorded copyright in the UK from 50 to 95 years. As previously reported, with a stack of fifties rock n roll recordings coming out of copyright each week, UK artists and record labels had lobbied Gowers to support a change in copyright terms to bring Britain in line with the US, however it now seems unlikely he will make that recommendation to government.
With that in mind, key industry associations quickly moved onto a new stage of lobbying yesterday, publicly calling on the government to ignore Gowers' recommendations should he oppose the copyright extension. BPI boss Peter Jamieson told reporters: "The BPI has not yet seen the Gowers report, but if the media leaks are correct it would appear that the Gowers Review has missed a great opportunity to support the UK's music industry - both the musicians who make a living out of music and the companies who invest in them. But it is really the responses of the Treasury, Department Of Trade & Industry and Department of Culture, Media & Sport and not the recommendations of an independent report, that we are most interested in. It's in the government's power to ignore such a recommendation and they should do so. There can be no rationale for discriminating against performing artists - a vital part of the creative mix - nor can it be possible to justify disadvantaging Britain and Europe in the global music market. The sound recording is as important a copyright as musical composition and film, and deserves a similar lifespan."
Fran Nevrkla of recording rights society PPL, meanwhile, observed that Gowers "had got things very wrong", adding: "I sincerely hope this government will have the moral fibre and courage to support talent, creativity, investment and success and will not duck this critical issue by conveniently hiding behind academics and other 'thinkers', many of whom wish to see copyright downgraded if not destroyed".
The Open Rights Group, one of the organisations opposing the extension of the copyright term, said it was "encouraged and delighted by the news", while Andrew Hobson of London law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP told reporters that Gowers' recommendations were not surprising, because any extension of copyrights would be an EU wide issue, and therefore outside the remit of the current review. He said: "Britain could never have unilaterally extended the period of performer's protection and complied with its EU obligations. It is true that this period is much less generous than that given to the authors/composers of the songs but that is the policy decision that has been taken. To change that will require the will of all 25 EU member states."
But John Kennedy of the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry, in a quite lengthy and very critical response to Gowers' rumoured conclusion, said that he felt there was a mood for copyright extension across Europe, and that formal UK support for such an extension, while not essential, would speed up moves for an EU wide change in copyright. He told reporters: "If the Gowers Review has indeed decided not to recommend the equalisation of the Copyright Term then that is a big disappointment, but not a complete surprise to the music industry. There have been rumours for a time - founded or unfounded - that Mr Gowers did not think it appropriate. However, this report is only a recommendation, and it is the government that will make the final decision".
He continued: "At the end of the day, it will be an interesting test of how future Labour governments will conduct business. The UK music industry has thrived over the years, producing great talent, paying taxes, generating employment and maximising overseas revenues. The music industry is facing tremendous challenges but even now the UK music industry punches above its weight on the international stage. I have often asked on behalf of the UK music industry: 'Shouldn't we have a government that each day, when it comes to work, asks itself "What can we do for industry?"' Copyright equalisation is one of the few things the music industry has seriously asked the government for over the years. Now the Treasury has to decide whether or not it wants to support one of its successful industries. If the UK government decides not to support copyright equalisation, then the music industry will have to continue its campaign in Europe. There the signs are encouraging but there is no doubt that there will be raised eyebrows and the question will be asked 'Why should Europe help the music industry when the government of the most important music market in Europe and the government of EMI has decided not to?'"
Laying on the pressure, he concluded: "UK and European governments give speech after speech talking about the importance of the knowledge economy. A decision not to equalise the Copyright Term would confirm that there is no real belief in these words. We have let our manufacturing industry slip away. Will we now show the same lack of support for our creative industries?"