Open Rights Group submits argument to UK Intellectual Property Office critiquing European Commission’s proposal to almost double the term of music copyright protection.
Almost 2 months ago I reported how the European Commission formally adopted several initiatives that drastically alter copyright protections by lengthening the term from 50 to 95 years.The plan is intended is intended to ensure hat artists receive royalties further into retirement, and also to give record producers additional time to “adapt to the rapidly changing business environment.”
An extended term would mean that performers could continue earning money well into retirement. A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s would lose protection. They will continue to be eligible for broadcast royalties, royalties for performances in public places, such as bars and discotheques, and compensation payments for private copying of their performances.
However, the extended term would also benefit record labels who would get an extra 45 years to monopolize the albums of society’s most gifted musicians. The Commission apparently decided to include them so that they would be able to generate additional revenue from an increased music catalogue to sell tracks and albums from.
“It would generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the Internet,” said a press release from the Commission. “This should allow producers to adapt to the rapidly changing business environment which is characterized by a fast decline in physical sales (- 30% over the past five yeas) and the comparatively slow growth of online sales revenue.”
Now the Open Rights Group, a UK-based “grassroots technology organisation which exists to protect civil liberties wherever they are threatened by the poor implementation and regulation of digital technology,” has submitted comments to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) criticizing the proposal.
“Our submission shows that for the vast majority of performers the projected extra sales income resulting from term extension is likely to be meager: from as little as 50¢ ($0.7 USD) each year in the first ten years, to as “much” as €26.79 ($37.6 USD) each year,” reads their response. “That’s because most of the gains (89.5%) will go to the top 20% of recording artists. Meanwhile the major labels will be dividing up millions in extra handouts every year.”
In the meantime, the Big 4 record labels stand to gain anywhere from €205,000 ($288,000 USD) to €4,075,000 ($5.7 million USD) per year which means their increased revenue will be almost twice that of artists.
To be clear, the chart below illustrates who really stands to gain the most from the proposal.
“The proposal is set to cost hundreds of millions to consumers, with repercussions to the public interest, follow-on innovators and cultural diversity,” continues the Open Rights Group’s statement. “It serves as a windfall for an industry the Commission would have us believe is immune from simple economic logic.”
Unless an artist records a song when he’s ten and lives to be 105 years old a 95 year copyright protection scheme will only benefit those entities which never age – record labels.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- EU Props Up Record Labels, Extends Album Copyright to 95yrs
- Zune means zilch for artists
- European Artists Defend Copyright Fees
- Artists Revolt Against Major Labels
- UK report: make format shifting and parody legal, don’t extend musical copyrights
Loading ...
as usual the artists get screwed
This is another reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The should be made to help the preformer not the record labler and usely 95 years is way too long. Myself I don’t listen to anything made before 1968 just because it didn’t sound that good but it doesn’t mean it was bad stuff. Who can recall a great tune from the 1940’s or from 1930’s I can’t. So going by this law any music made from 1913 to the preset is to be protected by law. Is this another Mickey Mouse law to protect the recording lable.
Wow.. a whole 83 cents. The artist would need to sell 1000 copies just to make $830.00 not to mention that rest of the band members need to get their share as well. All Artists should just promote themselves!
This is another reason why major labels are having a hard time selling music. Most people who want to support the musicians buy direct. And if they can’t they aren’t bought.