The interesting thing about copyright is that the lawyers and licensing people who work in it find it fascinating, while everyone else finds it mind-numbingly dull. Which is actually a bit of a problem because we really need to educate the masses about the importance and reality of copyright, but to do so we need to find a simple consistent message that doesn't put everyone to sleep. Which means if there are two groups of people who should never work on promoting the issues of copyright, it's lawyers and licensing people. But alas, they are the ones normally charged with the task.
If you wanted proof of that little theory of mine, you'd have got it at the MusicTank conference on copyright, held in London yesterday.
Firstly, on the importance of delivering a clear consistent message to consumers, Emma Pike of British Music Rights, the body charged with the task of promoting copyright on behalf of the publishers, said just that in her opening address. "The concept of copyright is not in crisis," she told the conference, "but we all need to work in partnership - creators, music companies, technology companies and consumers - to better educate people as to what copyright is and why it exists".
As for the point about not letting those who work in copyright do the educating, well... MusicTank had put together an excellent panel of compelling speakers with refreshingly different opinions on the matter. Yet, despite that fact, as the same old issues started to loop round it was quite clear the different parts of the music industry were still struggling to deliver a consistent message, and as an innocent by-stander with only a passing interest in copyright law I have to say - I soon started to feel sleepy.
But enough of that - let's get on to one of the key discussions of the day - and something which I think even the least-copyright-concerned of the CMU Daily readership might be able to digest without dozing off - the inconsistency between the copyrights that British law offers songwriters and singers.
The copyright owned by a record label and their artists on a sound recording lasts fifty years from release, of course, while a songwriter has a copyright on the songs they write not just for their whole lifetime, but for 70 years after death (well, I guess the copyright then belongs to the songwriters heirs, but you know what I mean). This anomaly was caused by a quirk of copyright history, and is something BPI chief Peter Jamieson thinks needs to be addressed.
"The key issue for me is harmony," Jamieson said in his opening address. "Publishers and songwriters have rights for life, and their children's lives, an artist and their record label only have fifty years. Yet songwriters rely on recordings to promote their work, and recordings involve the biggest investment. It is simply unfair for that difference in copyright to exist".
While artist managers and record labels differ in opinion in many areas of copyright, on this one they are very much united. Speaking for the Music Managers Forum, David Stopps supported the BPI's viewpoint: "We can see no reason why the protection for recordings is different to author rights. It came about for historic reasons - but that is no reason for it to remain that way. Is a copyright for 70 years after death too long? Possibly. But there is no reason for the difference between recording and publishing rights".
However, don't go thinking there is complete consensus on this issue - though those that question the logic of copyright harmony generally come more from the academic world than the commercial music industry. But Cory Doctorow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation was keen to stress that the case for harmony in music copyright wasn't clear cut. "Copyright should be calculated according to what's good for the cultural world in terms of providing a framework and incentive for original works. Different kinds of output require different incentives and rewards - so there is nothing wrong with there being differences in the kinds of copyright the law makes available".