|
Who wins when you extend copyright limits?
Source/Link
Performers likely to get as little as 50¢ a year from increased term of copyright
Posted by Becky in Copyright, Public Domain, Release The Music at September 5th, 2008
50 cent pieceLast month the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) asked for comments on the European Commission’s proposal to almost double the term of copyright protection on sound recordings. The Commission’s proposal [pdf] is flimsy, misleading, and peppered with contradictions. Our submission [pdf] asks the UKIPO to reject it in the strongest terms.
Our submission shows that for the vast majority of performers the projected extra sales income resulting from term extension is likely to be meagre: from as little as 50¢ each year in the first ten years, to as “much” as €26.79 each year. 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.
What’s more, performing artists will make no extra revenue from radio airplay and other income streams arising from so-called “secondary remuneration rights”, and may even make less. The Commission assumes that fees paid by users of recordings, e.g. broadcasters, will remain constant. That means the amount of earnings available to performers will not be any bigger - it will just be sliced more thinly and distributed longer to more rightsholders. Performers will not earn any more over their life time, and are likely to earn less, as money will be transferred from the living to the estates of the dead.
The proposal is set to cost hundreds of millions to consumers, with repercussions to the public interest, follow-on innovators and cultural diversity. It serves as a windfall for an industry the Commission would have us believe is immune from simple economic logic. No wonder Europe’s leading copyright thinker - and adviser to the European Commission - has accused the Commission of wilfully misleading the European Parliament, and the citizens of the European Union.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
pessimist
|
Date: September 7, 2008 @ 9:53 PM
Increase length of copyrights???
Boo! Hiss! Pffft! |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: September 8, 2008 @ 3:06 AM
Several large corporation's survival
depends on lengthening copyrights.
Therefore, it's going to happen.
No matter what.
The facts don't matter.
The best we can do is never buy from
them .. ever.
If you must have it, get it secondhand. |
|
CopyrightLaw...
|
Date: September 8, 2008 @ 4:26 AM
"The proposal is set to cost hundreds of millions to consumers, with repercussions to the public interest, follow-on innovators and cultural diversity. "
And corporations will reap MILLIONS. Corporations are asking for this. We don't need longer copyright terms, WE NEED SHORTER TERMS.
I can't believe any moron would think otherwise. |
|
pessimist
|
Date: September 8, 2008 @ 6:45 AM
Big business (and big government) is in charge. We the people are pawns and peons.
|
|
pessimist
|
Date: September 8, 2008 @ 6:48 AM
"I can't believe any moron would think otherwise."
They don't care about the public interest; it's like Dreddsnik said: they're going to do it anyway.
It's all about who's got the clout of the pursestrings and who's got the power of the politicians.
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: September 8, 2008 @ 1:01 PM
Performers will not earn any more over their life time, and are likely to earn less, as money will be transferred from the living to the estates of the dead.
If the first Beatles album became public domain, what it is currently earning would be spread out among the other artists. As the music from the 60s slowly drops out of the retail stream, this would be a significant incentive to create new works.
Can't have that. |
|
CopyrightLaw...
|
Date: September 9, 2008 @ 5:35 AM
"As the music from the 60s slowly drops out of the retail stream, this would be a significant incentive to create new works."
Gee, since Copyright law was provided in our Constitution only as an incentive to create new works, that means any such extensions to terms would be a violation of the Constitution. Why don't you do something about it, Supreme Court and Justice Department. The weanies on the Supreme Court hide their head in the sand like an ostrich every time a case comes before them that challenges copyright terms. |
|
|