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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blank media levies, copyright, eu, musicians, welfare
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Media Levies
they are even proposing a 5 dollar a month tax on the internet connection for the same thing.
Now how much of that cash actually goes to the musicians who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Levies
That is the key. I would pay this tax (even on my Internet connection) if they would let me download anything I want. In the US the tax was set up only for legal copying. So I'm playing for me copying a CD for backup purposes not for sharing.
I don't know if it would work this way in the EU, but they seem a little more sane over there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Media Levies
I do not download any music (pirated or bought) so why should I subsidise those that do just because I want an internet connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Levies
You are being treated as a criminal for absolutely no reason, with no evidence, just because some other people happen to be doing illegal things. It's akin to being pulled over by the police every time they see you driving a car, just in case it happens to be a stolen car.
They shouldn't be allowed to get away with crap like this, and I hope Europe shoots this stuff down and laughs at the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Media Levies
I have mixed feelings on the levy. Certainly a bandage solution at best though.
(I live in Canada btw)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Levies
I think that depends on whether you are someone breaking the law and managing to avoid conviction, or whether you are someone who does not yet has to pay a private corporation money because some one else might
Its an incredibly bad precedent to set in my view, perhaps I should pay £5 every time I buy a car to a group of shopkeepers since cars tend to be used as getaway vehicles?
I'm not trying to have a go at you but this law would basically be a corporate tax (from you to the corporations) based on their assumption that you might circumvent their business model. That to me seems very wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media and Copyright
So, copyright law, and covert taxes, don't bother me in the least.
It's about time though that we all stopped funding the various recording-industry lobbyists by continuing to buy their content. Once they're deprived of cash, they'll stop misbehaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's stupid to call it a welfare system for musici
If you doubt this is true, consider this alternative proposition:
"After the current copyright expires, rights return to the original creators of the work for an extra 40 years." Does anyone think that the labels, who claim to represent the artists, would support this proposition? Course not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media levies
Every DVD and CD you buy here has this tax.
Actually, 50% of the price you pay is the tax, no matter what you will use it for.
On the 90 years. Why should it be extended? So that the labels could keep music in their grubby greedy paws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do Publishing rights last so long?
On the other hand, why is the length of time for muscians and writers so different? Don't they all have a hand in the creative process? Maybe not an equal share I grant you, but thats why writers get more of the cut from sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't we just fight against that?
Ef that! I'm all for an anarchy right about now.
Democracy has clearly left the building to be replaced by corrupt bureaucracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't we just fight against that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sweet
Now send me part of that tax now that I am a musician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public accepts !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media Levies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isnt it double Jeopardy ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes and No
But I do have to disagree on the evils of extending 50 years to 90 years. The main reason is intent. To me the 50 years was established to cover the lifetime of the creator. Well the average lifetime for most people in the modern world has been extended another 10 or 20 years, and content creators are able to produce and distribute prodcts at much younger ages.
So back in the day, you produce a product at 22, and you would be lucky to see 72. But now you can produce a product at 16, lose your rights at 66, and spend the next 20 to 30 years watching people profit off your work.
I would reason that perhaps a better extension might be 80.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes and No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes and No
As others pointed out that wasn't the intent in the first place.
Well the average lifetime for most people in the modern world has been extended another 10 or 20 years, and content creators are able to produce and distribute prodcts at much younger ages.
Even if that is the case, then extend copyrights for *new* songs, not existing ones. A bargain was made. The public lived up to our end. Why are musicians trying to back out of theirs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But I do have to disagree on the evils of extending 50 years to 90 years. The main reason is intent. To me the 50 years was established to cover the lifetime of the creator."
Extending the copyright to 90 years only serves to assist in creating the welfare system you say you oppose.
As far as intent goes, the intent of copyright is not to give creators a lifetime monopoly on their work. If the original duration of copyright was intended to last the lifetime of the creator, then that's how it would have been written. Lifetime ownership of a copyright, at least in the US, was not intended. And based on the fact that the EU specifies a set number of years, I would say that it wasn't intended in Europe either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime ???
Which is better:
A tax system based upon the ratio of data vs music usage, which is collected up front and distributed to the music industry
or
A police force and legal system which spends massive amounts of time and money in a futile effort to enforce un-enforcable laws.
I am glad to pay the "tax" and (in Canada) I am not a criminal.
PS
By the way in Canada a music group can apply for a refund on the tax which they spent when purchasing blank CDs to distribute (ie sell) their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crime ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crime ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody is losing money!
2. I only download and share music from artists that have explicitly given me the right to share their work freely with whomever I choose. Music that is free as in freedom. HOW will a tax on my internet connection benefit me in any way?
/Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They actually do work. We have them in Canada on music cds. Not data cds."
I wonder if they realize that "Data" CDs can easily be used to create "music" CDs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Author's right
The person who has published most on these issues is Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger from the Harvard Kennedy School.
For
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't lump all musicians together
But I take issue with the way you've seemingly lumped all musicians together in this post and in some of your comments.
e.g. "Musicians must love him", "A bargain was made. The public lived up to our end. Why are musicians trying to back out of theirs?"
I don't think this was intended to lump all musicians together, but I think you should be careful because it sounds that way and weakens your argument a bit.
I'm a musician and I don't agree with McCreevy. There are lots of bands who embrace file sharing and new business models rather than clinging to copyright as welfare. (I know you're well aware of this.) Lastly, as others have pointed out, most of the time it's the record companies and publishers pushing these things who aren't always speaking on behalf of musicians.
Anyways, "some musicians" (the Metallica type) and some large corporations are in favour of these types of laws - not musicians in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]