{"id":2441,"date":"2008-12-26T21:41:09","date_gmt":"2008-12-26T21:41:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/2008\/12\/copyright_exten_3\/"},"modified":"2008-12-26T21:41:09","modified_gmt":"2008-12-26T21:41:09","slug":"copyright_exten_3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/2008\/12\/copyright_exten_3\/","title":{"rendered":"Copyright Extension"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In just four days, we could begin to see the first of Cliff Richard&#8217;s singles re-released without Richard himself either profiting or having any say over what&#8217;s released.<br \/>\nThat <I>could<\/I> happen, although as I write, I can&#8217;t see any forthcoming releases at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/s\/qid=1230327690\/ref=sr_st?keywords=cliff+richard&#038;rs=229816&#038;page=1&#038;rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Acliff+richard%2Ci%3Apopular%2Cn%3A229816&#038;sort=-releasedate\">Amazon<\/a>. Indeed he&#8217;s recently released a celebratory 50 years anthology, and gave away an album with the Mail on Sunday recently covering much the same.<br \/>\nHis first two singles came out in 1958 and were <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cliff_Richard_discography#1950s\">Move It and High Class Baby<\/a>.<br \/>\nBecause copyright on current performers extends over 50 years, those songs drop out of copyright from Jan 1 2009.<br \/>\nRichard&#8217;s problem is that he performed, but did not write most of his hits. Move It, <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Move_It\">Wikipedia tells me<\/a>, was written by Ian Samwell (Aaron Schroeder wrote the B-Side &#8211; Schoolboy Crush). Samwell died in 2003, but his estate continues to profit from the song he wrote, and will do so until 2073 under current UK copyright legislation.<br \/>\nBut Richards isn&#8217;t happy, and he&#8217;s not alone. In 2012 early Beatles songs will also go out of copyright, and thousands of other songs are going out of copyright every year.<br \/>\nThere&#8217;s a massive push amongst the UK music industry to get this period increased from 50 years to 95 years.<br \/>\nThe reason is simple. These songs currently earn money, and with recorded sales declining, the industry is trying to recoup every penny it possibly can from wherever it can.<br \/>\nIs this a problem? Doesn&#8217;t Cliff et al deserve a few quid for their work? Well in fact, Cliff&#8217;s profited quite nicely. The major problem the industry has is that all the people who stand up for them seem to be well-known multi-millionaires. I can look at my own work in 50 years time and know that it won&#8217;t be earning me any cash. But then I know that because I went in knowing it. If I perform a song today and it&#8217;s in some way successful (I know this is a stretch, but stay with me), then I know that I have but 50 years to recoup some cash. A struggle I know.<br \/>\nAndy Burnham recently stood up in front of the music industry and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.culture.gov.uk\/reference_library\/minister_speeches\/5685.aspx\">gave a speech<\/a> which suggested that the UK government was backing down from the conclusions of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ipo.gov.uk\/policy\/policy-issues\/policy-issues-gowers.htm\">its own report<\/a>.<br \/>\nGowers, the author of the report, has a fantastic riposte <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ft.com\/cms\/s\/0\/ba280756-ca07-11dd-93e5-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1\">in the FT<\/a>:<br \/>\n<em>Copyright is an economic instrument, not a moral one, and if you consider the economic arguments &#8211; as I did two years ago at the request of Gordon Brown &#8211; you will find that they do not stack up. All the respectable research shows that copyright extension has high costs to the public and negligible benefits for the creative community.<br \/>\nConsumers find themselves paying more for old works or unable to access &#8220;orphan works&#8221; where copyright ownership is unclear. Small businesses that play recorded music such as hairdressing salons and local radio stations face a hidden extra &#8220;tax&#8221; in the form of higher music-licence fees. Do they really need this at this time?<\/em><br \/>\nGowers goes on to point out that no musician has ever decided not to record a song because it&#8217;ll be out of copyright in 50 years.<br \/>\nThe orphan works argument is also important. Most recorded music is not available today. It was largely disposable at the time, and even if it wasn&#8217;t, unless it was recorded by a big enough star, it has long gone out of print. It&#8217;s worth nobody&#8217;s time putting it back in print if there are unnecessary copyright payments making the project unworkable.<br \/>\nAnd if you can&#8217;t even trace the copyright owners, then you can expect the works to remain out of print until that copyright period is up completely. Currently that&#8217;s 50 years from then, but it could reach 70 or even 95 if we mimic the States where Walt Disney has had such a sway.<br \/>\nAs ever, it&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.openrightsgroup.org\/2008\/12\/11\/screw-the-evidence-says-burnham-lets-extend-copyright-term-anyway\/\">the Open Rights Group<\/a> that looks out for this kind of thing, because the music industry sings from one voice.<br \/>\nAs it points out: the record industry will roll out some needy musicians &#8211; and there undoubtedly are many. But they won&#8217;t be the real beneficiaries of increasing the term: many of those performance rights are owned by the large labels. I don&#8217;t doubt that they&#8217;re suffering. <a href=\"http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/1\/hi\/business\/7777196.stm\">Look at EMI <\/a>after all. But that&#8217;s not reason to tax the public.<br \/>\n<em>[Regular readers may know that I&#8217;ve written a lot on this subject before. <a href=\"http:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/weblog\/archive\/001878.html\">Here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/weblog\/archive\/002161.html\">here<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/weblog\/archive\/002321.html\">here<\/a> for example. These views, are of course my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.]<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In just four days, we could begin to see the first of Cliff Richard&#8217;s singles re-released without Richard himself either profiting or having any say over what&#8217;s released. That could happen, although as I write, I can&#8217;t see any forthcoming releases at Amazon. Indeed he&#8217;s recently released a celebratory 50 years anthology, and gave away [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,10],"tags":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2441"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.adambowie.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}