Some things just never die. In 2007, the UK House of Commons investigated extending the term for copyright protection for sound recordings from 50 years (which it is now) to 70 years. The Government ultimately decided not to pursue the extension, much to the dismay of its supporters. But now, less than a year later, the idea is back, this time in the form of a private member’s bill in the House of Commons. That something might actually be happening in this regard was brought to my attention courtesy of the IP Kat’s Jeremy Phillips, who says:
According to a tiny article in The Times Online on Monday,
“the [UK] Government has indicated that it will support a policy change that will allow pop stars to earn more money from their recordings. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, said that the Government would revisit its opposition to extending the copyright term on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years”.
There’s nothing on the Department of Culture, Media and Sport website to substantiate this, though. Can any wise reader put the IPKat right as to what’s going on?
There are some rumblings around on this, though nothing that specifically answers the question about the Government’s apparent flip-flop. The Open Rights Group seems to have the skinny in relation to UK happenings, though. According to their February 21st (how did I miss this!!) post:
European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy may have surprised us with his rogue call for copyright term extension from Brussels last week, but there are battles to be fought closer to home, too.
On 7 March, a Private Member’s Bill proposed by Pete Wishart MP will have its second reading in the House of Commons. It is vital that you write to your MP now to ask him or her to attend the Commons on 7 March and stand up and object to this Bill. If you don’t the Bill is likely to pass through to committee stage without debate.
The March 7 date for the second reading is confirmed here. So, it seems that this thing that many thought was dead has now been resurrected at both the national and the European level.
Part of the difficulty of addressing these proposals is that they are Janus-faced; that is, they look two ways: they rely on the notion that copyright is designed to provide an incentive for the creation of information goods to justify the system, but they then turn around and argue “fairness” in relation to specific terms of that system. One argument to get it in place, another to argue its provisions. Consider this quote from the Financial Times on the 15th of February (in relation to the EU proposal to do this very same thing):
The British Phonographic Institute, which represents music companies in the UK, said it would “restore fairness to the copyright system and be a very positive step for the development of the creative economy in Britain and Europe”.
Restore fairness. Sound recordings now in existence were created with the knowledge that they would be protected by copyright law for fifty years from publication? What is “unfair” in the state refusing to extend that?
It is, of course, because they’ve switched justifications, from the of one of markets and utilitarianism on which they commonly rely to one of “fairness” and “equity” in relation to rights others hold elsewhere in copyright. They cannot rely on arguments that increasing the length of protection for existing copyright works provides any incentive to create those works; those works are already created. So, they switch rhetoric and turn instead to arguments of fairness. And when this is occurring, it’s very difficult to try to figure out exactly what the arguments are and how the policy questions fit together.
This is especially true when the rhetorical switch goes from a utilitarian base that — at least in theory — requires a balancing of the need for incentives against the public need to have access to and use information to one that is based in the fairness of rights provided to rights holders. Who is missing in this latter rhetoric? Users, reusers, re-creators, and anyone who believes that when you strike a bargain, you should stick to that bargain. “What’s fair is fair” is an oft repeated phrase; unfortunately, it doesn’t tell us fair to whom.
FYI, more arguments on the extension issue were raised recently by James Boyle in the FT.