-->

Less Than 50 Years Music Copyright makes Sense

Copyright, and specifically the length or extension of copyright, has recently been under discussion in the UK, and (in all probability) is due to come up in the European Parliament at some point this year. It was therefore a surprise to read something common-sense from the man behind the recent UK Report on copyright, Andrew Gowers. While the final report recommended the status quo option of the UK remaining at three chords per artist per song a length of fifty years before it becomes a public work, he suggested that…

“I could have made a case for reducing it based on the economic arguments. We certainly considered it, and if you look at the report that came from the academics that we commissioned to examine the arguments and examine the evidence they also argued very robustly that 50 years could be arguably more than enough,” said Gowers, a former editor of the Financial Times. “In the end we took the politically prudent course. To be honest reducing it in any case would be a very big international debate. It would stand very little chance of making headway in Europe.”

Okay, so here’s my thing. This was an independent report (we’re told) and if the final reason for staying the same was to head of a lot of discussion, then surely that’s the wrong thing to do? Surely opening it up for a mass debate is what we want to do? I’m going to paraphrase Kennedy here and say that we should choose to discuss difficult issues such as copyright not because they are easy, but because they are precisely the opposite. That it is a decision with wide ranging effects that could benefit the world if we had the courage to lead this.

Cliff Richard, Sixties Pop Star

Why should music artists continue to be award an automatic financial gain 50 years after composing a track. Sidestepping the argument that it’s the record labels that would beneit and not the artist, the purpose of copyright was always to give a short term level of protection from the state for the artist to profit from his work. As party of that deal, at the end of the term, the work goes into the public domain for anyone to use.

This doesn’t mean we would never see, for example a Cliff Richard album with the 1958 track ‘Move it’ featured on it – EMI/Parlophone can still produce and sell it. What they wouldn’t have to do is pay any copyright fees to Richard from the Album. Which in my mind is fair, he’s had fifty years to capitalise on this. The number of forgotten tracks in the vaults is legion, and these need to get out there before they’re lost. How many of the fifties beat bands would be just as cool as Cliff but remain locked up in aan ivory tower?

I’m of the opinion that 10 years in the modern world is more than enough for copyright – and then the holder can apply (once) for a five year extension. The arguments for 75 or more years protection to continue a few gravy trains (e.g. Mickey Mouse) are based on greed, but I’m more than happy to listen to any other arguments

April 29, 2007; Digital Music, Multimedia, Personal Posts;

Possibly Related posts:

If this is your first time here, why not consider subscribing to my RSS feed?

Comments

Leave a Reply