EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension

from the sad dept

Whenever we talk about things like retroactive copyright term extension, we frequently see comments from even the regular copyright system supporters among the readership here insisting that they, too, feel copyright is too long and extending it further makes little sense. In fact, it often seems difficult to find anyone willing to publicly support copyright term extension... and yet, it seems to keep happening. We were just discussing how Denmark had suddenly changed its position on copyright extension on the issue of neighboring rights, which are a particularly pernicious interpretation of copyright law.

Either way, it looks like Denmark's sudden caving (after quite a bit of lobbying from the entertainment industry) is quickly snowballing into the EU Commission moving forward with copyright term extension across Europe. Multiple economic studies have shown that such extensions do not benefit society. In fact, they rarely benefit the content creators who are paraded out as the reason for such extensions. Instead, the majority of the money goes to a few gatekeeper companies who hold a bunch of old copyrights. It's pretty sad that the EU would so blatantly take content out of the public domain and give it to a few legacy companies.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, denmark, europe, welfare

Denmark Reverses Position On Copyright Extension, May Impact All Of Europe

from the a-tax-on-the-public dept

There is no ethically honest argument in favor of retroactive copyright extension. The point of copyright is to present incentives for the creation of new works. It's a form of an agreement with the public: the public grants the content creator a limited monopoly for a certain period of years, and in exchange, the public gets the work which will then fall into the public domain once that monopoly expires. Extending copyright retroactively makes no sense unless you are distorting the purpose of copyright law. After all, the "deal" was clearly enough at the time of creation to incent the creator to create. Changing the terms of the deal retroactively later is a way to unilaterally change the deal with the opposing party: the public.

Now, the argument most commonly used in favor of retroactive copyright extension is an argument of welfare: that poor starving musicians need this money to survive. Of course, there are two key problems with this. The first is that copyright is not a welfare program. If we want to create a welfare program for musicians, then let the government be upfront and create a specifically funded welfare program for old musicians. But, it would need to defend why it's doing that for old musicians as opposed to old "everyone else."

The bigger problem, however, is that copyright extension almost never actually helps those poor starving old musicians. Anyone who's actually looked into this has seen that the vast majority of that cash goes directly to the major record labels. And if you think they're going to start writing checks to those poor old musicians, you haven't paid much attention to how those record labels handle their accounting.

Either way, this fight comes up every time copyrights are about to expire, and there's been a big push across Europe to extend certain copyrights that are starting to expire. The EU Parliament apparently pushed for extending sound recording rights from 50 years to 70 years, but thanks to significant protests and complaints against this, the EU Commission hadn't moved forward on it. One of the countries holding out was Denmark. However, Slashdot points us to the news that Denmark has had a sudden and unexplained change of heart... and is now happy to support retroactive copyright extension. Not surprisingly, the reasons being given by the Danish culture minister are the classic welfare ones.

"I attach great importance to the musicians have strong rights. In government, we have carefully considered the matter and finds that a term of 70 years would be a sensible approach. Musicians should not experience losing rights to their recordings, while they are still active. We will therefore work towards an extension of protection that will strengthen the musicians and record companies' rights. "

"Carefully considered the matter"? Yeah, right. Notice that no actual justification is given for this other than the idea that musicians should never lose their rights. So, does that mean Denmark now supports permanent copyright? Why "70 years"? Where's the evidence that's the proper number? Don't expect answers, you won't find them. Economists who have studied the matter come up with optimal lengths much shorter than even the current 50 years that was perfectly acceptable for those musicians originally.

Of course, with Denmark switching sides, there are concerns that the current folks in power will quickly push through the proposal across Europe, and without any reasoned debate or considerations of the economic and cultural costs of retroactive extension, it will have happened yet again.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, denmark, europe, welfare

Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain

from the public-domain-is-important dept

If you've read James Boyle's book, The Public Domain, then you already should understand the reasons why the public domain is so important, and why it's a shame that, here in the US, we've had absolutely nothing going into the public domain for years, due to retroactive extension of copyright terms. One of the key complaints about such retroactive extension of copyrights is that it was done entirely without evidence that it was needed. Instead, we got purely faith-based arguments on the importance of keeping works out of the public domain. Those arguments tended to fall into three camps: (1) that public domain works get ignored, since a lack of monopoly means no one will do anything with them. (2) Totally contradicting the first claim, that public domain works would become overused in typical "tragedy of the commons" fashion, because there were no limits, and (3) that since the works can be used in a manner not approved by a copyright holder, it will lead to "inappropriate or distasteful" use (i.e., Mickey Mouse porn).

In the US, reason number one -- that public domain works are not used enough since there's no monopoly to make it worthwhile to invest in them and offer them up -- was a key driving force behind the last copyright extension, and likely will be used in a few years when Disney leads the fight for yet another copyright extension (what, you didn't think that was coming?).

Of course, now we actually have some evidence, and the initial reports suggest that all three reasons for hating on the public domain are simply not true. At all. The idea that bad things happen when works fall into the public domain is not supported by the data at all:

Since these arguments for the extension of term protection are based on assumptions that are quantifiable, [Professor] Paul [Heald] followed in the footsteps of Tim Brooks and began a series of papers where he attempted to prove or disprove the argument against the public domain through comparing the fate of works in the public domain to those still under copyright. In a series of three papers, he looked at the continued publication history of best sellers from 1907-1922, which are all in the public domain and those from 1923-1932, which are still under copyright. He looked at a number of measures, including whether the book was still in print, how many editions of the book were available and the price of the edition. His findings indicated that there was no statistical difference between the works in copyright and those outside. In fact, Paul noted that the data indicated that there was little support for the under-use of the public domain works as almost all of them were in print, compared to around 75% of the copyright works. Additionally, there appeared to be no meaningful difference in price between the two types either.

Paul then looked at popular music used in films between 1968-2008 in order to test the over-usage argument. Again he identified songs that were in the public domain and those that were in copyright in roughly the same timeframe as the books. Looking at the 74 songs that appeared in 4 or more films during that timeframe, he found no difference in usage between protected and unprotected works.This was the same for works that appeared in 1, 2 or 3 films. Public domain and copyright works were used roughly the same amount.

With regard to the debasement argument, Paul is currently working on a study of audiobooks and customer perception of their quality. In the study, he is looking at three types of works: amateur recordings of public domain works, professional recordings of public domain works and professional recordings of copyright works. In his first test of customer perceptions, he surveyed around 160 people on the quality of various recordings. While the full study is not complete, the preliminary reports indicate that there is no difference between the public domain recordings and the copyright ones.

Of course, will this evidence actually be used to prevent further copyright extensions and further limits on the public domain? That seems doubtful.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, public domain

And Here We Go Again: Argentina Extends Copyright

from the cry-for-creativity,-Argentina dept

It's nearly impossible to keep track of the recording industry's efforts to extend copyright around the globe, using its usual "leapfrog" means of claiming that copyright lengths need to be "harmonized," and thus ratcheted up and up and up on a rotating basis. Apparently, while everyone was focused on places like Europe and Japan, the industry has successfully been able to get Argentina to extend the length of copyright on performances from 50 years to 70 years. Amusingly, all those quoted in favor of it, make bizarre claims that retroactively extending copyrights on content already created 50 years ago will somehow promote the creation of new music.

And, of course, as this news comes out, it's worth pointing out that a commenter last week reminded us of economist Rufus Pollock's paper from June of this year, which tried to calculate the optimal length of copyright and found that it is likely in the 10 to 15 year range. So why are governments moving progressively further away from that rate based on nothing other than demands from the record labels who know that lengthier copyrights are nothing more than a monopoly rent for them? What's truly amazing is that pretty much the entire history of the copyright debate has been based on claims without any evidence that "more" must be "better." But these days, we have plenty of evidence that shows that's not true. So why do politicians keep extending copyright?

Filed Under: argentina, copyright, copyright extension

Copyright Extension Moves To Japan

from the ain't-no-such-thing-as-a-public-domain dept

Looks like the latest battle over copyright extension is about to take place in Japan, where the new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, has vowed to extend certain copyrights. Specifically, he says that posthumous copyrights for compositions should last 70 years, rather than 50. This makes no sense, no matter what basis you judge copyright on. Copyright is supposed to serve a simple purpose: to encourage the creation of new works. It never makes sense to extend copyright on existing works, because those works were already created. In other words, the social "bargain" that was offered in terms of the limited times of protection available were clearly sufficient. But, it's making a pure mockery of the law to specifically single out posthumous copyright protection to be extended because, as far as I know, the dead no longer have any incentives to create new content, no matter how long the copyrights on their old content lasts. The only explanation for doing so is to create a special welfare program for songwriters and composers. But, if that's the case, let's make it clear this is a welfare system, rather than anything to do with copyright.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, japan

Gershwin Heirs Fight Over Copyright Royalties

from the oh-please,-make-it-stop dept

The heirs of George and Ira Gershwin (the famous songwriting brothers) were leaders (right alongside Disney) in the fight for copyright extension a decade ago. They insisted that it wasn't about the money, but about making sure that their work wasn't presented in a way of which they disapproved ("Someone could turn 'Porgy and Bess' into rap music" was the complaint from Mark Gershwin, conveniently ignoring that much of the Gershwin's work pulled concepts from African American music). Yet, if it's not about money, why are the Gershwin heirs suddenly involved in legal battles all about who gets the money?

Copycense points us to the news of a variety of legal battles from the heirs on different sides of the family squabbling over who gets what rights to foreign royalties. Of course, they're fighting over who still gets to make money on songs that were all written prior to 1937 (when George died). When those songs were written, the "promise" copyright gave them would have already put all those songs in the public domain by now. One would think these heirs (none of them actually direct descendants of either George or Ira -- since neither had children) would be thrilled that the government went back on the promise it made to the public and granted them even more monopoly rents for a few more decades and kept quiet. But, apparently, that's not the way these things go.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, gershwin, royalties

EU Approves Copyright Extension, Despite Evidence Of The Harm It Does

from the what-a-shame dept

It's a huge shame, but the EU Parliament has voted to extend copyright on performances from 50 to 70 years despite the fact that this breaks the deal made with the public, goes against the entire purpose of copyright law and has been shown to cause significant harm to the music business. The various member states still need to agree to this individually, but it's ridiculous that it could even get this far. This is a huge boost for some record labels and some big name musicians, who will simply pad their earnings at the expense of new and struggling musicians. If you want a sense of how ridiculous the whole thing is, just read this section of the linked article:

The measure must still be passed by individual countries, and even if this is done by this summer, only recordings made in the 50 years before that point will qualify for the extended copyright.

This means that Sir Cliff [Richard] will lose control of income from his first hit, Move It, as well as from Living Doll, his fourth single, written by Lionel Bart and recorded in late April 1959, which sealed Cliff's place as Britain's answer to Elvis Presley.

This will not necessarily dismay him. Sir Cliff was unavailable for comment yesterday at his holiday retreat in Barbados, but when he travelled to Brussels last year for talks on the proposals he said: "I'm absolutely fed up with singing Living Doll but I have sung it constantly since 1959 because every time I sing it live, it generates sales of the original record and royalties to me."

Poor Cliff Richard. He's at his holiday retreat in the Bahamas, consoling himself over the fact he no longer has to sing a song he hates just to generate royalty checks... but his other songs from 50 years ago will just keep paying off.

Filed Under: cliff richard, copyright, copyright extension, eu parliament, europe

EU Rejects Copyright Extension... For Now

from the good-news dept

Following the recent debates on copyright extension, there's a bit of good news. It appears that the Council of the European Union rejected yet another attempt to extend the copyright on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like this is (by any means) the end of such proposals. In fact, it's been made clear that this rejection is just a step in the process towards copyright extension. Of course, a bunch of recording industry lobbyists are complaining about how unfair this is, but they fail to explain how it could possibly be seen as fair to retroactively change the deal made with the public to take away the public domain. The entire purpose of copyright is to put in place a limited-time monopoly to act as incentive to create new works. Obviously, that incentive worked, or the content wouldn't have been created. Unfortunately, the recording industry now wants people to believe that copyright is some sort of welfare system for musicians, whereby they should continue getting paid for work they did over 50 years ago. It's a total distortion of the purpose of copyright law -- and one that will cost consumers dearly, and pay musicians little, but enrich the recording industry tremendously. Yet, because of some sob stories about how musicians need this, politicians across Europe have been leaping on board.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, eu, europe

Debating Copyright Extension In The UK

from the missing-the-point dept

Shane Richmond, who writes about technology and media for the Telegraph, recently handed over his blog to Martin Kretschmer and Horace Trubrudge for a debate about copyright extension (which is currently being discussed in the UK). Kretschmer is an intellectual property professor who is against copyright extension, while Trubrudge is the Assistant General Secretary of the British Musicians' Union, and (not surprisingly) favors copyright extension. You can read the back and forth as follows:

• Kretschmer: We must not inhibit digital creators :: Shane Richmond
• Trubrudge: I am here to fight the corner of the UK's musicians
• Kretschmer: Musicians should see themselves as part of a continuum of creative endeavour
• Trubrudge: It's time performers' moral rights were strengthened
• Kretschmer: Redistributing from the living to the dead
• Trubrudge: 'What have you got against Cliff Richard'?

Unfortunately, the debate is a bit haphazard and goes all over the place at times. Kretschmer, unfortunately, doesn't do a great job picking the key points for why copyright extension is bad and sticking to them (i.e., the fact that copyright is a deal struck between the public and the creator, and changing that deal at a later date steals from the public). Instead, he focuses on the fact that most of the money will go to the record labels and big name musicians -- which is a worthwhile point, but it leaves it open for Trubrudge to basically say, "so what?" Trubrudge's point is that even if the record labels and some big artists will benefit the most, other musicians will still benefit somewhat, and his job is merely to make sure that those artists benefit. He also pulls out the "moral rights" argument which is a total red herring.

It's too bad the debate went in that direction, as the question of copyright extension is a really important one -- especially considering that it breaks a contract that the public made with musicians on the terms under which that content was created. It also ignores how such extensions limit the ability of new artists to build on older works -- which is a key component to many newer artists creating their own unique works of art. As an example of this, I point (again) to James Boyle's excellent discussion on how Ray Charles invented soul music by effectively "ripping off" other musicians, and how others have then built on Charles' work. Stringent copyright protection at the time may have prevented soul music from ever coming about. There are plenty of similar examples as well -- but unfortunately the debate doesn't seem to touch on that aspect at all.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, horace trubrudge, martin kretschmer, uk

Extending Copyright Law Is Like Banning Wikipedia

from the indeed dept

Richard Smith has an interesting post discussing James Boyle's excellent book, The Public Domain, which we've been discussing as well. In his post, though, Smith makes a really good point, comparing the extension of copyright to the banning of Wikipedia. Obviously, that sounds like hyperbole, but he's making a really good point that is often missed in these discussions.

You never see (or think about) what's lost when we create ever more stringent and draconian copyright laws.

Smith points to Boyle's thought experiments on how you would set up a network if given the choice, in 1990, between an open and a closed network. He notes, pretty accurately, that many people would likely freak out about the nature of the open network, recognizing all of the downsides, but rarely the potential upsides of such a network. Instead, they would focus on creating a "protected" network. Luckily, that's not what happened, but no thanks to careful planning. It was mostly an accident of history.

The second experiment would be about creating the best encyclopedia out there:

In a second thought experiment, imagine that it's five years ago and you are responsible for developing the most comprehensive and up-to-the-minute encyclopedia the world has ever seen. One strategy is to create a global company, employ the brightest people available, check every fact produced, and implement the most rigorous editorial controls. A second option is to "just create a website and let anybody put up anything". Again, we'd mostly have opted for the first strategy, and the world wouldn't have Wikipedia.

Once again, Wikipedia is more an accident of history. It was an experiment -- an offshoot of another project to see what would happen. It wasn't well planned out, but it worked.

The problem with copyright law, is that it tries to plan everything out. It focuses on preventing all sorts of potential "bad stuff," but never takes into account all the good stuff that would be allowed through such happy accidents. Strengthening copyright law may try (and likely fail) to prevent "bad stuff" from happening, but it also may cost us the next Wikipedia -- without anyone ever realizing it.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, uk