EU Public Affairs Monitor - 19/12/08

Burnham puts moral case for term extension
“Culture secretary Andy Burnham has said there has “always been” a moral case at the heart of copyright law.

Defending the Government’s decision last week to extend copyright term from 50 to 70 years, Burnham writes “If someone produces exceptional work in their 20s that is still being listened to 50 years later, it is right that their earnings from it are not suddenly cut off when they are in their 70s. The argument here is that the person who creates a work should be able to enjoy the value of that for the duration of his or her natural life.”

Responding to an article in the Financial Times by Gowers Review author Andrew Gowers, Burnham also said it is a false argument to compare musicians with other professions such as sportspeople. “No one is going to profit from someone winning the 100 metres decades on from that victory, but, in a digital world…music continues to generate revenues far into the future.”

The culture secretary puts the case that a vegan rock star should not have to put up with seeing their music used to promote burgers and asks why should performers have to watch others profiting from their talent and creativity? “So there is a very clear moral case to extend copyright,” he writes.” [MusicWeek]

Andy Burnham: A practical and moral case for extending copyright
“The length of time that sound recordings remain in copyright is a controversial subject and for the past couple of years a debate has raged on whether to extend it from the present 50 years.

Andrew Gowers - who led the Gowers review of intellectual property - suggested it should remain at 50 years but that we should review it in the light of European considerations. Charlie McCreevy, European Union commissioner, subsequently came up with a different view: that it be extended to 95 years.

In the light of that, and in view of Mr McCreevy's argument about there being a moral case for extending it, the government has been looking at the issue again. John Denham and I, as the ministers responsible, felt that 95 years would be disproportionately long. But we do feel that there is a case for extending the term to a period of something like 70 years.” [FT]

Reaction: Any extension to copyright must look forward only
Letter from Mr Andrew Gowers, Head of External Relations, London Business School.

“Sir, Andy Burnham writes (“A practical and moral case for extending copyright”, December 16) that the government is looking for a “workable compromise” on copyright that will balance the interests of musicians, the music business, and purchasers and users of music. Understanding the enormous political pressure he and ministerial colleagues have been under on this issue, may I make a constructive suggestion?

If the government must consider extending copyright protection as Mr Burnham proposes, I suggest it does so on a forward-looking basis only. That way, ministers can address musicians’ concerns and marginally enhance incentives for creation, without creating an unwarranted windfall for music companies for past productions or breaching existing implicit contracts with the public.

This approach would also have the virtue of consistency, since the government did accept without question the recommendation of my review that “the term and scope of protection for IP rights should not be altered retrospectively”.” [FT]

Reaction: Look at it from engineer’s perspective
Letter from Mr Anthony Stansfield.

“Sir, Andy Burnham (December 16) argues for an extension of copyright to provide musicians with a continuing source of income long into their retirement, perhaps arising from work that they did in their 20s. Let me provide an alternative perspective.
I am an engineer. My creative work is protected by the patent system rather than by copyright. This provides protection for 20 years – not 50, or 70, and certainly not 95 years. It is possible that my work, or that of any other engineer, could still be in use after the expiry of this period, but it is very unlikely that royalties from inventions made even in my 40s will be directly contributing to my retirement income.
Mr Burnham asks: “Why should performers have to watch others profiting from their talent and creativity?” I would suggest that the answer for them is the same as it is for me – the intellectual property system provides a limited period for us to profit directly from our creative work, after which it becomes publicly available for others to build on, and develop in ways that we haven’t thought of.
We may be able to “enjoy the [monetary] value” for only a limited period, but can enjoy the ongoing impact of our work indefinitely.” [FT]