Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians

from the how-many-times-does-it-need-to-be-repeated? dept

The purpose of copyright is clear: it's to provide an incentive for the creation of new content. As such, it makes absolutely no sense to ever retroactively extend any sort of copyright. The government, backed by citizens, made a deal with content creators: you create content and we give you a monopoly for x number of years -- and clearly that deal was considered fair by the content creators, or they wouldn't have agreed to it and created the content. To go back and change the terms of the deal at a later date is unfair to everyone. It's renegotiating a deal against citizens' best interests. It's as if you bought a car for a price you negotiated, and three years later, the car company comes back to you and says that you need to pay more, because they, alone, decided that they didn't make enough off of you. Even worse, they get the government to force you to pay, saying that you need to do so.

Sounds ridiculous, right? But that's exactly what's happening with copyright extension in the UK.

We've covered this before. Performance rights in the UK only last 50 years, so music performed in the 60s has started to move into the public domain, and some musicians are freaking out. They first tried to push for an extension using some famous musicians, like Cliff Richards and Ringo Starr, but later realized that people didn't have any sympathy for aging millionaire rockers, demanding more money. So, after that proposal failed, they switched tactics, talking about how poor studio musicians needed copyright extension as a form of welfare.

This argument is incorrect for a variety of reasons. First of all, copyright was never intended to be a welfare system. Studio musicians knew the terms of the deal, and if they chose to rely on earnings from a single performance in 1958 for 50 years, it's difficult to see why the government should bail them out for their own short-sighted thinking, and their decision to live off of a single performance for all those years. If they performed regularly for many years, then they should still be earning plenty off of royalties from songs they recorded less than 50 years ago, so it's difficult to see what the problem is. And, of course, the whole thing about poor studio musicians is mostly a myth. A recent study showed that if performance copyrights were extended, the vast majority of the money generated would go to major record labels, and not to these studio musicians. At best, most studio musicians would earn less than 27 euros per year from the extension.

But, of course, that won't stop the propaganda fueled by the record labels who stand to make a nice, totally unearned, profit from an extension. They've put together a video of these "poor studio musicians" begging the government for a handout. They don't even try to disguise it, admitting that they're asking the government to "show a little gratitude." So, basically, you have musicians who made a fair deal fifty years ago, now being manipulated by the record labels who apparently didn't pay them enough for their session work when it occurred, asking for a handout at the expense of everyone else. The UK government should reject this blatant and unfair renegotiation of terms, and tell the musicians if they want to ask someone for a handout, why not turn to the record labels who apparently didn't pay them enough in the first place.

43 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..

EU Again Thinks About Extending Copyright, Despite Earlier Rejection

from the copyright-as-welfare dept

Copyright was never designed to be a welfare system -- yet increasingly we're hearing from people who seem to think it is one. A couple years ago, the UK commissioned a detailed report on the question of copyright extension, known as the Gowers Report -- which clearly recommended against extending copyright on performance rights. In fact, Gowers later admitted that all the evidence suggested that copyright length should be shortened, rather than lengthened. And, for at least a little while, the government agreed.

However, back in February, we noted that the EU's "internal market commissioner," Charlie McCreevy was pushing to expand copyright, making bizarre claims suggesting that he really does think of copyright as a welfare system. And now, unfortunately, TorrentFreak lets us know that McCreevy may get his wish. His proposal may be up for a vote this week, extending the copyright on certain performances from 50 years to 95 years.

This is, of course, a complete bastardization of copyright. Copyright was a bargain between the public and content creators: if we grant you a monopoly on this content for a certain number of years, you'll create that content. There is no excuse to go back at a later date and change the terms of the deal. Clearly, it was enough to get the content created at the time. The musicians accepted the deal. To go back later and extend it for another 45 years is simply taking that content out of the hands of the public who made the deal on the other side.

What becomes clear, though, is that McCreevy doesn't even recognize the public's role in this, other than to pay up the "pensions" of musicians, even beyond what was promised:

"I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension."

The choices of names in this quote aren't an accident. Cliff Richard was the musician who most fought for the extension (suggesting that it is, indeed, about artists like Cliff Richard). In fact, some criticized Richard for speaking up about this, because it drew too much attention to musicians who had made plenty of money. So it's pretty bizarre for McCreevy to pretend that this isn't about Richard. But, much worse, is pretending that this is about these musicians' "pensions." That's not at all the purpose of copyright -- and turning it into one is simply illegally shafting the public by changing the terms of the deal it crafted with the musicians.

14 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..

EU Looks To Extend Copyright And Blank Media Levies

from the welfare-for-musicians dept

Over in Europe, it appears that the European Union's internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy has decided that it's high time Europe turns copyright from an incentive system (as it was designed) into a welfare system for musicians. Despite the fact that the UK wisely rejected copyright extension for performance rights, McCreevy thinks that performance rights EU-wide should be extended from 50 years to 90 years.

It's important to be entirely clear here: this is a total and complete bastardization of copyright law. Copyright law was intended to grant the creator of content a deal: you create new content and we will give you a limited time monopoly on the rights to that content before passing it on to the public domain, from which everyone can benefit. It was designed as an incentive system, providing a gov't backed monopoly in exchange for the creation of content. By creating content and accepting that deal, musicians clearly said that it was a reasonable deal. To later go back and change the terms for content already created and extend copyright makes no sense and is violating the contract made with the public. You can't newly incent someone to create content that they already created 50 years ago. Thus, the only reason to extend copyright is if you believe that it's really a welfare system for musicians. If that's the case, then we should be explicit about it, and present it that way, rather than calling it copyright.

That's not all that McCreevy has up his sleeve either. He's also apparently a huge fan of copyright levies that add taxes to any blank media for the sake of reimbursing musicians just in case you happen to use that blank media to record unauthorized material. It's effectively a you must be a criminal tax. So, basically, McCreevy's plan is to treat all consumers as criminals, forcing them to cough up extra money for musicians, while also setting up a welfare system for musicians hidden in the copyright system. Musicians must love him, but it's a bit ridiculous for him to claim these proposals make sense because "copyright protection for Europe's performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances". Does Mr. McCreevy earn a living from something he did 50 years ago? Does Mr. McCreevy get a cut every time a consumer buys something just in case they commit a crime?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..