Term extension back on the agenda

Like Hugo I am also blogging 'cold of the press' but in case it has slipped anyone by in the laast couple of days, the idea of copyright term extension for sound recordings is well and truly back on the agenda in Europe and it now seems that the extension of the copyright term for sound recordings (from 50 years to a probable 70 years) may be implemented following a meeting of the European Union's Committee of Permanent Representatives. The European record industry has been lobbying for some time for the sound recording copyright term to be extended, noting the difference between European and US copyright terms (the US has a potential 95 year term for sound recordings), and difference with the term enjoyed by music publishers and songwriters - the copyright term in the melody and lyrics of a song is life of author plus 70 years.

Andrew Gower's 2006 Report on IP was seemingly unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the record labels but the last (Labour) Government seemed to support term extension, mainly based on pleas to protect the pensions of 'aging session musicians' - and Cliff Richard. The matter moved to Europe with mixed results and whilst both the European Commission and European Parliament backed an extension, in 2009 the Council Of Ministers failed to finalise arrangements with some states notably Denmark blocking term extension beyond 50 years.

I must say that this passed me by, but with the benefit of hindsight it seems that under Hungary’s presidency of the EU, the debate on Europe wide term extension was reignited and pro-extension lobbyists say they are now confident that the Council will agree to extension and this it will pass into domestic copyright law across the EU.

There have been a number of comments on any potential extension – and some of the most interesting came from the Music Managers Forum who wanted term extension to actually benefit musicians (rather than record labels) and suggested a number of very pithy proposals, some of which must have horrified the major record labels who usually get the lions share of profits from the sale of back catalogue and, with unrecouped artistes, get one hundred percent of all income - even at 50 years. The MMF suggestions included a ‘use it or lose it’ framework to return unused copyrights to recording artistes, statutory guarantees of royalty revenues, a fiduciary duty placed on labels to account for (equitable) royalties, a potential veto rights over how music is used, or, even, complete control for the artist after a period of time with a reversion of all rights to the original creators (the recording artistes) after 50 years – or even after 25 years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/cliffs-law-gives-ageing-rockers-a-pension-after-copyright-ruling-2351636.html

Copyright Term Directive: latest news

70 years ago, Glenn Miller recorded
String of Pearls and Chattanooga
Choo-Choo

In "A game plan against copyright extension", Pirate MEP Christian Engström provides some useful information on today's sudden activity in the European Parliament concerning the generally unpopular proposal to extend from 50 years to 70 the duration of copyright protection for sound recordings in the European Union (on which see yesterday's post here). Today Christian writes, in relevant part:

"We now have a game plan for how to try to stop the extension of the copyright term for neighbouring rights from 50 to 70 years. You can read about the background in yesterday’s blog post. What we want to achieve is to overturn a decision to extend the protection time that was taken by the European Parliament in April 2009, after heavy lobbying by the record companies. ...

According to Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the parliament can reopen a dossier that is still in first reading if a new parliament has been elected since the first reading position was adopted. Since a new European Parliament was elected in June 2009, this is the case.

If 40 or more MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) ask for it, the proposal for a renewed referral will be put to the vote in plenary.

If we get a majority there, the President (speaker) of the Parliament shall ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to the parliament. This means that the dossier is open again, and we can have a full discussion about the subject matter.

This would be the sensible thing to do. The previous Parliament’s decision to extend the time for the neighbouring rights was ill considered, and has been heavily criticised by legal and economic scholars. There is no reason for the present Parliament to be bound by it.

We will now start the process of collecting at least 40 MEP signatures on the following text:

Request for
RENEWED REFERRAL
to Parliament

pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure

of the proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and related rights (COM(2008)0464 – C6-0281/2008 – 2008/0157(COD)).

If we can collect 40+ signatures, we should be able to get the item on the agenda for the parliamentary session in May. Then we will need citizens to email their MEPs to explain the issue and urge them to vote in the right way. But more about that when the time comes".

Apart from the strange alliance of anti-term-extension forces, with various distinguished academics and other fairly pro-copyright people teaming up with the Pirate Party on this issue, what is notable is the fact that the Pirate Party is seeking to work within the law in seeking to achieve its aims -- a far cry from the stance of some of its past supporters.

Just when you thought sound recordings had gone quiet ...

The eventual duration of
copyright in sound recordings? 

"Copyright term extension: Back from the grave" is the title of this piece by Bournemouth University's Martin Kretschmer. He explains:

"Two years ago, on 23 April 2009, the last European Parliament voted in first reading for a proposed Directive, extending the term of copyright for sound recordings from currently 50 to 70 years. The Directive was then blocked on the Council of the European Union by a coalition of Benelux, and some Scandinavian and East European countries that took note of the empirical evidence mustered by independent academics from across Europe.

Since 2009, the world has changed. A new European Parliament and Commission are in place, and the focus of recent copyright initiatives has been on the opportunities offered by digitisation for cultural, social and commercial innovation. As Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda said in speech at Avignon on 5 November 2010: 

“Instead of a dysfunctional [copyright] system based on a series of cultural Berlin walls, I want a return to sense. A system where there is scope to create new opportunities for artists and creators, and new business models that better fit the digital age. We want to help you seize the opportunities of this age.“

So why has the Copyright Term Extension Directive suddenly re-appeared on the Agenda of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI), as a late addendum (at no. 31, and as of Monday 11 April, not on the website of the JURI committee)? [link here to Pirate Party MEP Christian Engström]

Music industry lobbyists have succeeded in overturning Danish and Czech opposition, picking off key members of parliament in these countries. The Danish government has now notified the Commission that it supports term extension, breaking the blocking minority on the Council. See press release of 24 February.

Prompted by the Internal Market Directorate of the Commission, the current Hungarian presidency of the European Union is now looking to fast track this stale piece of legislation through Parliament while preparing the Council for a vote before the end of its presidency in June.

The Directors of four leading European intellectual property research institutes have just written an open letter in order to raise attention of this matter. It is still possible that the European Parliament will ask for a proper second reading of the text, or that other countries on the Council will reform a blocking minority (including the UK which is currently reviewing her intellectual property laws for their contribution to innovation and growth: Hargreaves Review, due to report at the end of April)".

Further developments will be posted here, as they unfold, tomorrow.

As a relatively keen observer of IP developments, I'm not often taken by surprise -- but this certainly caught me out.  I'm also unaware of any new evidence having been unearthed in order to present a stronger case for extension than that which was previously rejected.  Has there been any? Can anyone tell me?

Thanks are due to Martin Kretschmer and Mike Lynd (Marks & Clerk) for keeping me informed.