Professor Slams European Commission For Ignoring The Evidence On Copyright Extension

from the it's-not-about-evidence,-it's-about-campaign-contributions dept

Fri, Aug 29th 2008 12:16pm — Mike Masnick

We were pretty surprised a few weeks back when the European Commission endorsed a plan for copyright extension, despite ample evidence that retroactive copyright extension is a bad idea. Soon after that announcement, a group of European academics sent a letter warning that such extension would harm innovation. The academics keep piling on, as Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, the director of the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) has sent an open letter to the Commission blasting them for ignoring all of the research showing that copyright extension is bad. Specifically, Hugenholtz is amazed that the Commission relied only on reports prepared by industry, and willfully ignored research prepared by independent academics, such as his own group, claiming that by ignoring such studies, the Commission has a clear intention to mislead the rest of the EU by hiding the research that shows why copyright extension is a bad idea.

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: copyright, copyright extension, eu, europe, innovation

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

User_X, 29 Aug 2008 @ 12:46pm

His letter was promptly filed in the round cabinet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ann, 29 Aug 2008 @ 1:28pm

What a corporate little money can do
Dear Lord, I would expect this of the US and its puppy Canada but the EU?!?! Who paid off the commissioners?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 29 Aug 2008 @ 1:47pm

Re: What a corporate little money can do
Mickey Mouse's leashholders.

Oh, and probably the guys who own the rights to all those songs by that silly Beatles band.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2008 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: What a corporate little money can do
mm that would still be Mickey mouse Jackson?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alias, 29 Aug 2008 @ 2:08pm

Ok, wait
So you're saying he blasted the round cabinet instead of the EU. Niiiiiice. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2008 @ 3:59pm

How disheartening it must be for an academic to realize that others do not seem to give a darn about his academic opinion. Poor baby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 29 Aug 2008 @ 4:10pm

Re:
How disheartening it must be for an academic to realize that others do not seem to give a darn about his academic opinion. Poor baby.

Actually, in Europe, they do take these things pretty seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2008 @ 4:33pm

Re:
How disheartening it must be for an academic to realize that others do not seem to give a darn about his academic opinion. Poor baby.

Looks like you are a few fries short of a happy meal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dubber, 29 Aug 2008 @ 4:51pm

Incomplete theory
Hugenholtz is right... but it goes further than that.

Extending the term of copyright is bad. That much is clearly true. The next conceptual step that needs to be taken is to consider that reducing the term of copyright is good. As long as:

a) it's renewable; and
b) there's a 'use it or lose it' clause.

I wrote a post recently called How long should music copyright be? where I explain, and argue in favour of a 5 year renewable term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2008 @ 6:13pm

Re: Re:
"Actually, in Europe, they do take these things pretty seriously."

The linked article suggests otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2008 @ 6:14pm

Re: Incomplete theory
"Extending the term of copyright is bad."

Why is that...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 29 Aug 2008 @ 7:27pm

Re: Re: Incomplete theory
Primarily because the rationale behind the extension is not to promote new works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2008 @ 9:04pm

Re: Incomplete theory
I wrote a post recently called How long should music copyright be? where I explain, and argue in favour of a 5 year renewable term.
Why not 10? Or 5 1/2? Or 4 1/2? The point is, that 5 year number seems to be something you just pulled out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2008 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: Incomplete theory
In all fairness, what the individual has expressed is a 5 year renewable term. Every 5 years a copyright holder has the option of either simply abandoning further claim to copyright or paying a renewal fee (i.e., a tax). Of course, this renewal could continue into the future far longer that the terms currently provided by law.

His view in some regards mimics what US Copyright Law entailed prior to 1/1/78. The law embodied formalities that when met provided a 28 year copyright term, with the possibility of one extension for an additional 28 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bikey (profile), 31 Aug 2008 @ 1:04am

academics v commission
When will Europeans realize that it's US lobbyists, and not academics that the Commissions listens to. Also, more than 'performers' these benefits go to record companies, lumped together with broadcasters as neighboring rights. Labeling this a benefit for poor performers is the same trick as 17th century printers saying 'it's about the poor authors'. It never was, it never will be. Performers will continue to get screwed, just as they always have. It's the lobbies, Europe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]