Gowers Slams Out Of Touch UK Cultural Secretary Over Copyright Extension Plan

from the learn-some-economics dept

Last week, UK Cultural Secretary Andy Burnham laid out a highly questionable argument in favor of copyright extension on performance rights in the UK. The logic he used made little sense, and seemed to be based on a odd belief that musicians had some sort of moral claim on money more than 50 years after they recorded songs -- ignoring plenty of evidence that any extension wouldn't actually benefit most musicians, but would enrich the major record labels.

Now, SteveD points out that Andrew Gowers has responded to Burnham's suggestion and trashed the idea impressively. Gowers, you may recall, is the former Financial Times editor who was asked to explore issues having to do with copyright by the UK government. After spending quite some time researching the issue, he produced the so-called Gowers Report, that explained why copyright extension was a bad idea. Later, Gowers admitted that all of the evidence suggests copyright should actually be much shorter, not longer.

Gowers response to Burnham is worth reading in its entirety, as it skewers pretty much every point that Burnham put forth. Here are just a few tidbits:

As political speeches go, this is pretty silly. A moral case? You might just as well say sportspeople have a moral case to a pension at 30.

Copyright is an economic instrument, not a moral one, and if you consider the economic arguments -- as I did two years ago at the request of Gordon Brown -- you will find that they do not stack up. All the respectable research shows that copyright extension has high costs to the public and negligible benefits for the creative community.

Consumers find themselves paying more for old works or unable to access "orphan works" where copyright ownership is unclear. Small businesses that play recorded music such as hairdressing salons and local radio stations face a hidden extra "tax" in the form of higher music-licence fees. Do they really need this at this time?

Mr Burnham will no doubt find such arguments uncool. But even on his terms, the case for extension does not work. Twenty years' extra earning power in 50 years' time does nothing to put more money in the pockets of struggling performers now: two thirds of lifetime income from an average compact disc comes in the first six years after release.

And it will not alter the incentives for creation one jot. As Dave Rowntree, Blur's drummer, told my review: "I have never heard of a single band deciding not to record a song because it will fall out of copyright in only 50 years. The idea is laughable."

The rest of it is worth reading as well, and near the end he puts in a key point, addressed to the music labels: "Please focus on innovation, not on trying to eke more rent from the successes of yesteryear." Indeed.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Extension In Europe Will Only Make Musicians A Tiny Amount Of Money; But Will Cost Consumers

from the protecting-the-artists? dept

When the EU ignored tons of evidence and the very purpose of copyright in announcing plans to extend performance copyrights from 50 to 95 years, the politicians who supported this proposal (of course) insisted that they were doing so to benefit the artists who most needed it, such as the session musicians, rather than the big stars -- basically admitting that they were viewing copyright as a sort of welfare system for musicians (despite the fact that copyright is designed for a totally different purpose).

While this ignores the fact that many session musicians are paid a flat fee for their efforts and don't retain copyrights, a group has found even more damning evidence against the plan to extend copyrights. Using the very numbers that were relied on by the European Commission to push this plan, the Open Rights Group notes that most musicians would earn almost nothing from the extensions -- with 80% of the musicians getting less than 27 euros per year.

You know who would benefit though? You guessed it! The recording industry. Record labels would likely bring in millions of euros thanks solely to the extensions. And who would be harmed? Yup. Consumers. So, consumers are harmed, musicians aren't really helped, but the recording industry makes out like bandits. Is anyone really surprised?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Government May Extend Copyright, Despite Saying It Wouldn't

from the well,-how-about-that dept

Back in 2006, you may recall that the UK released the so-called Gowers' Report, which was a look into various issues having to do with copyright law in the UK. I pointed out, at the time, that the report was too balanced for its own good, focusing on how to "balance" one side's views against the other's -- without recognizing there could be paths that made everyone better off. The one thing it got sort of right, was in making it quite clear that extending the length of copyright was a bad, bad idea and totally unnecessary. In fact, Gowers later admitted that he toned down the report, since the actual evidence he found suggested that things would be better if copyright length were shortened -- but he knew suggesting that would lead to screams of outrage from the industry.

At first, it appeared the government was going to accept this reasoning, and rejected the idea of extending copyright on performances. However, these sorts of things are never over when it comes the recording industry's lobbying efforts -- and some believe that they've convinced the government to change its mind and revisit copyright extension. How? By playing the sympathy card, focusing on the fact that "performers who were reaching retirement were being deprived of revenue from popular recordings, just when they need the money the most."

This is the "welfare" argument. It's the argument that copyright is some sort of welfare system designed to keep paying musicians for a single performance they did 50 plus years ago. Unfortunately, that's not what copyright is for. It is merely an incentive for the creation of content. If that copyright was enough to get the musicians to perform 50 years ago, then it served its purpose. Extending the copyright after the fact makes absolutely no sense. The fact that some musicians won't still be getting royalties from these performances seems meaningless. They knew the terms of the deal when they did it: they got royalties for 50 years. They had 50 years to save money and do other work to build a nest egg -- just like every other worker in the world. What they're basically asking for is the equivalent of any normal worker going back to his employer from 50 years ago and demanding an additional salary for that work. There is simply no reason to support such efforts.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..