I'm a couple of weeks late with this one but as reported by numerous news sources, the copyright term for performers and sound recordings has been extended by 20 years to 70 years. By way of background, in Europe, the copyright in artistic or literary works (which are fairly broadly specified in Article 2 of the Berne convention) lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright in sound recordings and broadcast performances (whether by radio or television) lasts for 50 years. Copyright durations in the UK are in line with European copyrights.
Personally, I think that the extension of copyright in sound recordings is disappointing – or rather the almost complete lack of debate on the matter is disappointing. Two government reviews of intellectual property law (Gowers and Hargreaves) both concluded that there was little or no economic case to be made for extending copyright durations. Despite this, the extension was waved through by the government without so much as a murmur of dissent. So much for evidence based policy making.
I'm not alone in this judging by the trenchant commentary on other blogs.
Speaking personally, I also believe that current copyright durations are far too long. Don't get me wrong – I think copyright in general is a very good thing and I certainly don't begrudge writers, musicians and performers of all stripes (artists for short) the ability to make money from their work – and in some cases to make an awful lot of money from their work. However, I disagree with the justifications put forward for the current excessive duration of copyrights.
All intellectual property rights, should be a balance between a benefit to the public and a benefit to the rights owner. In the case of copyright, artists are given a legal tool which allows them to make money by distributing copies of their work whilst giving them the right to prevent anyone else from copying that work. This is balanced by two things – firstly that the copyrighted works will eventually pass into the public domain and secondly that the possibility of making money encourages more people to create artistic works for the public to enjoy.
Nowhere in this can I see a reason that copyright should be a gravy train for an artist's descendants and for their descendants too. However this is precisely what the legislation specifies. Before the last round of extensions, copyrights lasted for 50 years after the death of the author, which was 'intended to provide protection for the author and the first two generations of his descendants'. It was then noted that people were living for longer and lo and behold – a justification for extending to 70 years after death was found.
On a similar note, one reason for the recent extension of copyright in sound recordings is (and I quote) “performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years applicable to fixations of performances often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime. Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetime.”
Seriously? Most people face an income gap at the end of their lifetime. It's called retirement. A lot of people from all backgrounds and incomes also have the wisdom and foresight to save something for retirement. Why shouldn't performers?
Sarcasm aside, it's worth having a look at this in a bit more detail. The average retirement age (defined as the age at which state pensions become available) in the EU is just over 65. I'll say 66 for convenience. So a copyright duration of 50 years would last a performer from the age of 16 to an age at which most other workers would recognise as a retirement age. That doesn't sound so harsh to me. Extending the copyright to 70 years covers a performer from birth to well past that retirement age – which strikes me as being plenty for even the most precocious of young performers.
However, linking copyright duration to working age isn't actually a bad idea. What if that applied to all copyrights? Forget about 70 years from death – just a single fixed term of 70 years from when any artistic work was created. In practice this would cover most artists for their whole lifetime. Even for artists that start their careers at a very early age it would last for their working lives, or at least for a duration that workers in every other field would recognise as a working life.
In many cases 70 years from creation would mean that copyright in an artistic work would still extend beyond the lifetime of the artist but not to the ridiculous extent that it presently does. For companies that invest in artists and their works, 70 years isn't an unreasonable time to recoup that investment either. Granted it would be significant reduction from what they currently enjoy but forgive me if I believe that these companies should be investing in new talent, rather than resting on the laurels of artists long since dead and gone.
The only significant losers are the artist's descendants and their descendants too. Again, forgive my lack of sympathy but to them I say welcome to everybody else's world. Enjoy whatever is left to you in your grandparent's will and then go out and earn your own money.
No comments:
Post a Comment