Set-back to copyright term extension "un-bloody-believable"
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 28 March 2009
Copyright term extension plans on hold. Czech Presidency proposal rejected by Council bureaucrats. British music industry unhappy with UK government. Signs of rift between Ministries.
Proposals to extend the term of copyright protection for performing artists from 50 to 90 years got a serious setback last night in Brussels and they appear to be on hold until after the European elections at least. The British music industry has reacted sharply to the news - an unnamed executive is reported as saying it is "un-bloody- believable"!
It is not entirely clear what has happened, but early reports indicate that a meeting of COREPER - this is the group of civil servants who work for the Council of Ministers - have thrown out a
compromise proposal from the Czech Presidency. The proposal dealt with details such as payment to session musicians. The blocking of the Czech proposal effectively means that it goes back into the melting pot of policy work, and will not be passed into legislation in the short term.
The proposals concern the draft directive for Copyright Term Extension. The key dispute is about whether it should be extended at all from 50 years, and if so, for how long. The Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, and his directorate, were proposing an extension to 90 years, but a compromise of 70 years has also been proposed. Deep within the detail are issue such as how musicians would actually get paid the additional money that they could be entitled to. Opponents argue that most of the money will go to music producers, not musicians. This is primarily an industrial argument, over how the music industry earns revenue for the future.
The British music industry is further reported to be critical of the UK government for failing to support the term extension proposals. It seems that the proposals were blocked by ‘a minority of countries' although the reports do not specify which ones. It also seems that the UK government either sided with the blocking vote, or abstained, which effectively allowed the vote to be carried.
The reports also indicate divisions in the UK government over the issue of music and online copyright. The reports indicate the the Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, is keen on the extension plans, as is David Lammy, the Minister for Intellectual Property. But the business secretary, John Denham, is less keen, and it appears to have been his officials who were involved in the meeting last night. His department, BERR, is demonstrating a more balanced approach on the whole downloading and copyright issue, especially in respect of peer-to-peer file-sharing. The BERR consultation on peer-to-peer highlighted the sharp polarisation of views on the matter, and the difficulty in reaching any kind of compromise between the industries involved. That is the starting position for any policy debate on this issue.
I am wondering if last night's decision is a political signal from the EU, recognising that copyright - especially online copyright - is a complex matter and that now is the time to take this politically difficult and thorny issue and deal with it holistically. Piecemeal legislation - such as the Copyright Term Extension directive - is unhelpful in this environment.
It must be considered in light of other policy initiatives for multi-territory rights and copryight enforcement. The latter encompasses measures such as 3-strikes and content filtering on the Internet. These issues are key ones at stake in the EU Telecoms Package, now going through the European Parliament ( and extensively covered elsewhere on iptegrity.com).
Early reports in The Times and Music Week .
If you quote from this article, please credit iptegrity.com!
- Article Views: 10359
IPtegrity politics
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
- What? Will UK government ignore security as it walks away from EU?
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill