0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The European Union wants to add 45 years to the current 50-year copyright on musical recordings, arguing that aging performers can't afford to be cut off from sources of income just when they need them the most. In defense of this plan, Commissioner Charlie McCreevy's proposal said that no external expertise on the matter was required and, furthermore, that the (music-industry-provided) data he already had said the plan was a good one.Hugenholtz goes on to say, the whole process "seems to reveal an intention to mislead the council and the Parliament, as well as the citizens of the European Union. In doing so the Commission reinforces the suspicion, already widely held by the public at large, that its policies are less the product of a rational decision-making process than of lobbying by stakeholders." Hugenholtz can perhaps take cold comfort from the fact that the proposal doesn't just ignore academics, but major government-backed panels like the Andrew Gowers-led commission in the UK that also concluded that term extension was a bad idea.
The Open Rights Group reported on a letter sent from Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, a commission adviser, to the Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. The letter essentially asks why the evidence arguing against copyright term extension has been, by and large, ignored. The letter contains the following:Quote"The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the proposal for a term extension of the rights of performing artists and phonogram producers, which is the centre-piece of the Commission's package, references at various places studies and data provided by stakeholders, but fail to even mention our Recasting Study, which deals with the topic of term extension in detail and, on the basis of a thorough legal and economic analysis, rejects the main arguments made in favour of an extension. The Explanatory Memorandum also disregards our critical analysis of the issue of co-written musical works, which constitutes a seperate chapter of the Recasting Study.Amazingly and quite misleadingly, the Explanatory Memorandum states (on p. 6, in fine) that '[T]here was no need to external expertise'. This is patently untrue, as the terms of reference of the Recasting Study, which were drawn up by the European Commission (Invitation to tender Mark/2005/08/D), expressly asked for the examination of, among other issues, the need for a term extension and the issue of co-written musical works. The Impact Assessment that supposedly underlies the Commission's proposal also ignores the Recasting Study, except for a single mention in footnote 51, which quotes our study out of context. Similarly, the Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, that covers much of the terrain explored in both our studies, once again, ignores the critical findings of our research.Efforts to stop copyright term extension has been great outside of scholarly study. As we reported early on this year, there is a petition citizens of Europe can sign that argues against copyright term extension. The petition, known as sound Copyright, was launched by the EFF and Open Rights Group. The petition, aso of right now, has nearly 14,000 signatures.Meanwhile, the copyright industry has argued that if copyright isn't extended, then artists like 'The Beatles' will not have retirement money. Exactly how much constitutes "retirement money" for The Beatles is unclear, but apparently, selling 545 million records worldwide by 1972 isn't enough for retirement according to the recording industry.
"The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the proposal for a term extension of the rights of performing artists and phonogram producers, which is the centre-piece of the Commission's package, references at various places studies and data provided by stakeholders, but fail to even mention our Recasting Study, which deals with the topic of term extension in detail and, on the basis of a thorough legal and economic analysis, rejects the main arguments made in favour of an extension. The Explanatory Memorandum also disregards our critical analysis of the issue of co-written musical works, which constitutes a seperate chapter of the Recasting Study.Amazingly and quite misleadingly, the Explanatory Memorandum states (on p. 6, in fine) that '[T]here was no need to external expertise'. This is patently untrue, as the terms of reference of the Recasting Study, which were drawn up by the European Commission (Invitation to tender Mark/2005/08/D), expressly asked for the examination of, among other issues, the need for a term extension and the issue of co-written musical works. The Impact Assessment that supposedly underlies the Commission's proposal also ignores the Recasting Study, except for a single mention in footnote 51, which quotes our study out of context. Similarly, the Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, that covers much of the terrain explored in both our studies, once again, ignores the critical findings of our research.
