The latest episode in copyright term ended with a cliffhanger last April.

The Commission had proposed a draft Directive, various committees had discussed and amended it and the European Parliament had approved it with a large majority.

By rights, you might expect that performers and record companies would by now be enjoying a longer copyright, more in line with composers, songwriters, authors and graphic designers. Our back catalogue companies would be back in business and older performers would rejoice again knowing that a royalty would be on its way when they hear their tracks on the radio.

But that is to ignore the tri-partite nature of the European institutions. To pass into law, any Directive has to be proposed by the Commission and adopted by both the European Parliament and the Council of Member States. And that is where the proposal was left in the balance. After the vote in Parliament, the Czech Presidency failed to put the proposal on the Council agenda, leaving it in a temporary limbo.

Since last April, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose in Europe.

We European citizens have voted in a new Parliament of MEPs. The new Commission, under President Barroso is due to be voted in February. And the Spanish have taken on the Presidency of the Council of Member States, in tandem with the brand new President of the EU, Monsieur Rompuy, whose name has provided so much amusement to the British tabloid press. Out of this kaleidoscope of names and plethora of presidents, it is the Spanish Presidency which holds the trump card for copyright term. As President of the Council, they set the agenda and run the Council meetings so all eyes are on the Spanish to get the ball rolling once more.

Behind them is active support from many European countries keen to see their recording heritage kept alive and their older performers rewarded for their efforts. The proposal voted by the Parliament would extend copyright on recordings to 70 years from the date of release. Whilst falling short of the 95 years granted in the USA, a closer parallel with the life plus 70 years enjoyed by authors, it nevertheless provides a welcome boost to a catalogue of recordings from the 1960s onwards.

The extension would apply to both record companies and performers but the legislators were keen that the performers in particular would benefit from the proposal. They therefore included a session fund, giving session musicians additional revenues from sales, a use-it-or-lose-it clause, so musicians could self-release an album if the record company deleted it, and a clean slate wiping out any remaining negative recoupment balance. These provisions have received broad support from the industry, with the UK trade bodies agreeing an alternative split of PPL revenues to improve the accounting and distribution to older session musicians.

There is also broad political support. Our own UK Government has become an advocate, urging their colleagues in the Spanish Presidency to get the proposal through.

So where is the opposition? It is a question I am often asked. Surely, this proposal has been through the legislative machinery and emerged as something that sounds eminently sensible? But this has long since gone beyond the merits of musicians and their livelihoods. It has become a political football, traded in the corridors of power, where the walls have ears but the translation service only works intermittently.

-Dominic McGonigal

WIPO Headquarters in Geneva

Past the building site, through the corridor of hoardings with the name of the organisation in English, French, Arabic and Japanese, then into the foyer under a Latin inscription extolling the virtues of human art and invention. There was no doubting this was an international organisation and no doubting its purpose, furthering creation and innovation. Even the curved glass front of the 15-storey office building had the mark of ambition, reflecting blue sky or deep ocean. This was the headquarters of WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the occasion, the ratification of two international treaties by the EU.

The ceremony itself was rather low key, belying the significance of the event. 27 EU ambassadors were lined up in front of their flags, in a space slightly too small for comfort. One by one, they shuffled forward to hand over an A4 folder to Francis Gurry, the Director General of WIPO. Inside the folders were the ratification documents, officially bringing the EU into the so-called internet treaties.

With remarkable foresight, the WCT (WIPO Copyright Treaty) and WPPT (WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty) were agreed in 1996, before many people had even heard of the internet and well ahead of the havoc wreaked by Napster and its successors. The addition of the 27 EU territories brings the number of countries signed up to the treaties to 88 and 86 respectively. In a rare demonstration of international harmony, these treaties give authors, performers and producers basic rights in the works on the internet. As well as the more familiar rights over copying, distribution and communication, the key online right of making available was added. Almost throughout the world, creators and those who invest in them can expect remuneration. The principles are laudable. The reality we know is very different and only now are governments beginning to talk about measures that might make the shift from online piracy to legal usage.

So why the building site at the WIPO entrance? It is a new larger office for the organisation reflecting perhaps the growing importance of IP throughout the world, for our economies, our societies and our culture. Certainly the agenda is expanding. There is talk of an audio-visual treaty, a broadcast treaty and a treaty for visually-impaired persons. But a glance at the negotiations between the assembled nations in the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights shows that progress will be at best slow. It has taken thirteen years for the last two treaties to be ratified on a worldwide basis. How long will it take for agreement on the next treaties? And the big one, turning the making available right from principle to payment, is not even on the agenda.

What do Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China and the USA have in common? None of them give performers and record companies a radio right.

In the US, radio stations have built up a $16bn industry without paying a cent for the sound recordings that make up the bulk of their programming. All that could change as the Senate took a step closer to bringing in new legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed the draft Performance Rights Bill with a healthy majority. The House Judiciary also approved a similar Bill some weeks ago. The next stage is voting on the floor of both Houses on the Hill.

And this is where it gets interesting.

Up until now, the radio lobby have fiercely resisted any attempt at making them pay anything at all. Most of their arguments to date have centred around calling the licence revenue a tax, although they have held back from saying the money should therefore go to the Obama administration rather than to the performers and record companies. They have also claimed that the Bill is racist, but it is hard to see how. My favourite argument though was one radio exec claiming he was not worried as he would simply play unsigned artists. He did not reveal how long he would continue with this policy.

Now, the Judiciary Chairmen behind the Bill have urged the radio industry to smell the coffee, sit down and negotiate. There is still time, they say, to accommodate their concerns but the time for working out a deal with the music industry is now. The radio industry response has been to gather signatures on a resolution opposing the Bill. Even if the parties do sit down together, don’t expect sweet music.

What is music really worth? Sometimes it’s free. Sometimes you pay a few pence. Sometimes you pay a few pounds. Or you might even splash out more for a great musical experience.

It’s a question that has puzzled experts for years. Economists, forensic accountants, business analysts and IP consultants spend hours poring over the figures. They analyse every 79p that’s spent, every subscription and they even look at the purchasing habits of consumers when music is providing a conducive environment for spending.

The answer is to look at the market. The market of artists, record companies, retailers, online services, radio stations and nightclubs has come up with almost every conceivable way of consuming music and a myriad of business models to support that. Some music is given away free. Some is bought. Some is part of a service, maybe with other goodies thrown in.

But the market isn’t working. The help yourself mentality of the freeloaders is holding back that market from delivering the true worth of an artist’s music.

Unlike the MySpace page, it is not the artists who are giving away their material. It is others who seem to think they have a right to take something just because they can. The online environment is still more like the Wild West than the High Street.

And it is not just artists that are affected. It is now undermining the creators and investors in film, TV, books, images and the wider creative economy. The Government has put forward proposals, supported by the opposition parties, which aim to deal with this. Do we want a society which condones the wholesale theft of creators’ work or should we back those trying to make the internet a better place?