February 2008
EU Plans Sound Recording Copyright Extension
The European Commission has announced plans to extend the term of copyright protection for sound recordings from fifty years to ninety-five years. The protection given to recorded music is in two main parts: the rights in the composition, owned by the song-writer and normally exploited through publishing companies; and the rights in the sound recording, owned by the record company. The rights of performers are a third right but mirror the sound recording rights and the two are often considered together.
The move follows high profile lobbying from the likes of Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey arguing that the rights of music performers should more closely parallel the length of protection available to song-writers which stands at the life of the author plus seventy years.
Critics however have pointed out that the revenues available to performers from such rights are dwarfed by the income that record companies (normally the majors) receive from sound recording rights. Much of the lobbying has come from bodies such as the British Phonographic Institute (BPI), which primarily represents the major record companies. The BPI have received support from the Conservative Party, apparently in exchange for promising to promote more good role models in music.
The issue has already been considered by the U.K. government who commissioned the Gowers Review to consider many aspects of the music industry. The review rejected any extension as it concluded that the revenue available to performers in the U.K., although shorter in length than in the U.S., were actually higher in value. The review correctly predicted that the lobbyists would move on to Europe.
If the extension is adopted in the EU, it will mirror a series of extensions made in the United States, where companies such as Disney have long campaigned for longer sound recording rights.
Briffa’s Comment
To best enable and encourage creative endeavour, most intellectual property rights are only valid for a term. Copyright and sound recording rights already have some of the longest protection relative to other rights like patents and design rights. The term of copyright in compositions (musical works) has been increased in recent decades and the suspicion is that the two aspects of the music industry use each other as comparisons to progressively claim longer and longer protection. The real question should not be about comparison of the rights, but about what term will lead to the greatest creative output.
Today’s music often makes use of samples of older material and many would argue that it is all the richer for it. Whilst the creators of the earlier records are entitled to fair reward for their efforts, too tight a hold on records that have long since lost most of their commercial value can stifle instead of encourage creativity.
The performers involved in the lobbying may have valid interests, but all too often it appears that their faces and names are used as a front for very political activities in the background. The link between the Conservative Party and the BPI is bound to be seen as a further attempt at control and censorship by some in the music industry who already feel under attack from the Conservatives following David Cameron’s criticism of rap music and hip hop musicians.