The EU Railroads Term Extension

I have avoided commenting on the EU's proposed 45 year extension for sound recordings because the effort is so clearly wrong, so clearly another example of politicians ignoring the public interest in favor of hobnobbing with (in this case aged) stars that there is nothing constructive to say. Term extension will benefit a very few a great deal, and most not at all. The public will suffer as it always has done, but because the suffering is suffered in small amounts and diffusely, politicians are spared confronting directly the ugly consequences of their failure to act in the public interest. But yesterday, a succinct letter on the topic was published in the (UK) Times online by a number of European scholars that I thought all worth reprinting. For those in the U.S., it should be noted that in Europe academics play a significant role in governmental policy and are not as politically polarized as in the States. Here it is:



From The Times
July 21, 2008

Copyright extension is the enemy of innovation
The proposed Term Extension Directive will alienate a younger generation that fails to see a principled basis

Sir, Europe’s recorded music was about to experience a wave of innovation. For the first time, a major set of culturally important artefacts was to enter the public domain: the sound recordings of the 1950s and 1960s. Apparently not so. If the European Commission has its way, re-releases and reworkings of recorded sounds will remain at the mercy of right owners for another 45 years (report, July 17). Why?

The record industry succeeded to supply the Commission with evidence that was not opened to public scrutiny: evidence that claims that consumer prices will not rise, that performing artists will earn more, and that the record industry will invest in discovering new talents, as if exclusive rights for 50 years had not provided an opportunity to earn returns.

The Commission’s explanatory memorandum states: “There was no need for external expertise.” Yet, independent external expertise exists. Unanimously, the European centres for intellectual property research have opposed the proposal. The empirical evidence has been summarised succinctly in at least three studies: the Cambridge Study for the UK Gowers Review of 2006; a study conducted by the Amsterdam Institute for Information Law for the Commission itself (2006); and the Bournemouth University statement signed by 50 leading academics in June 2008.

The simple truth is that copyright extension benefits most those who already hold rights. It benefits incumbent holders of major back-catalogues, be they record companies, ageing rock stars or, increasingly, artists’ estates. It does nothing for innovation and creativity. The proposed Term Extension Directive undermines the credibility of the copyright system. It will further alienate a younger generation that, justifiably, fails to see a principled basis.

Many of us sympathise with the financial difficulties that aspiring performers face. However, measures to benefit performers would look rather different. They would target unreasonably exploitative contracts during the existing term, and evaluate remuneration during the performer’s lifetime, not 95 years.

We call on politicians of all parties to examine the case presented to them by right holders in the light of independent evidence.

Professor Lionel Bently, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, University of Cambridge

Professor Pierre-Jean Benghozi, Chair in Innovation and Regulation in Digital Services; Director, Research in Economics and Management, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS 1, Paris

Professor Michael Blakeney, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London

Professor Nicholas Cook, Director, AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music, Royal Holloway, University of London

Professor Dr. Thomas Dreier, Director, Centre for Information Law, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Professor Dr Josef Drexl, Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich

Dr Christophe Geiger, Associate Professor and Director elect, Centre for International Industrial Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg

Professor Johanna Gibson, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Centre, University of London

Professor Dr Reto Hilty, Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich

Professor Dr Thomas Hoeren, Director, Institute for Information, Telecommunications- and Media Law, Münster University

Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam

Professor John Kay, Chair, British Academy Copyright Review

Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University

Professor Dr Annette Kur, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich

- Show quoted text -

Professor Hector MacQueen, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh

Professor Ruth Towse, Professor of the Economics of Creative Industries, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Bournemouth University

Professor Charlotte Waelde, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh