Archive for January, 2010

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