EU commissioner: Let’s extend music copyrights to 95 years. Ars: 50 years is plenty

Coming soon to a European country near you: longer copyright periods! That's the proposal from EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who wants to extend the copyright term for musicians from 50 to 95 years. His proposal will be presented in the next several months.

Announcing the new plan, McCreevy made two arguments: 1) the "poor artist with no pension" argument and 2) the "it's not fair" argument. Argument number one makes the point that artists who began singing or playing instruments in their 20s could end up as a pensioner with no more royalties rolling in. "I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late 50s and 60s," said McCreevy in a statement. "They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension."

Argument number two points out that songwriters and composers—the people who actually write music and lyrics—have protection for life plus 70 years, while performers do not. "It is the performer who gives life to the composition," said McCreevy, "and while most of us have no idea who wrote our favorite song—we can usually name the performer."

If the proposal sounds a bit familiar, that might be because the same idea came up for debate last year in the UK. Cliff Richard lobbied the UK government over the perceived unfairness of no longer receiving royalties from his 1958 hit Move It! once the 50-year copyright protection expires this year, and Roger Daltry of the The Who also expressed outrage. Despite the lobbying of famous musicians and recording industry groups like the BPI and IFPI, the UK decided not to move forward with the term extension. It drew in part on the work of the Gowers Review of intellectual property, which decided back in 2006 that the 50-year limit was fine for musicians, even if it meant the loss of royalties for some in their old age.

From the perspective of those who think that current copyright terms are plenty long enough to provide incentives for artists to create (a group that includes the Ars editorial staff), a 45-year extension in copyright seems grossly excessive. When the musicians in question created their works—works to which they rightly deserve limited copyright protection—they knew the tradeoffs going into the studio. The government would offer a 50-year monopoly on controlling copies, plenty of time to monetize a work before it enters the broader pool of cultural materials known as the public domain. This was clearly enough incentive to go ahead and make music; after all, musicians actually recorded the songs and albums in question. If a 50-year copyright meant that it wasn't worth their time to do so, they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Now, years after implicitly agreeing to the compromise (the government provides copyright control and enforcement powers in order to encourage the arts, but won't let these rights extend forever), musicians want to nearly double the copyright term. Andrew Gowers didn't like the idea, the UK government didn't like the idea, and we hope that the EU has the sense to see its weaknesses as well.

Original here