This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Labels & Publishers Legal Top Stories
Lammy still not convinced by need for 95 year term
By CMU Editorial | Published on Monday 16 February 2009
Well, IP Minister David Lammy told us that much debate and compromise would be needed before the EU’s Council Of Ministers could pass the much previously reported recording copyright extension proposals, and he should know, because it seems that it will be him that those who support the proposals will have to debate and compromise with.
As much previously reported, European political types are currently debating proposals put forward by EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy to extend the recording copyright term across Europe from the current 50 years to 95 years, to bring it in line with the recording copyright term in the US.
The proposals would also ensure recording artists, and especially session musicians, would receive higher royalties during the extra years of an extended term than they automatically do during the first fifty years.
While the UK government had previously rejected the need for a longer term, late last year Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said Britain would now support an extension, though to 70 rather than 95 years.
IP minister Lammy, who seems less worried about his relationship with the music business at large than Burnham, has also confirmed his support for an extension, though stresses very strongly that his interest in a longer term is based on the need to support aging musicians and not record companies, though they would obviously also benefit from a longer term.
At a recent meeting of the Houses Of Parliament Jazz Appreciation Society called to discuss the then pending European debate on this topic, the industry were pretty clear to Lammy that they wanted the full 95 year term McCreevy was proposing. The minister evaded that issue at the time, and given his comments on Friday, that was presumably because he didn’t want a bust up at the otherwise amicable meeting.
Responding to the news that the EU’s influential Legal Affairs Committee had approved McCreevy’s proposals, albeit after adding some extra provisos to protect the interests of performers, Lammy stressed again that the UK would only support an extension to 70 years.
His argument is that if the extension is to benefit musicians rather than record companies, then a 70 year term is adequate – assuming that any musician who made their seminal recordings in their mid-20s is dead by their mid-90s, then the only people to benefit from the extra 25 years of copyright would be the record companies who released the work.
Lammy told reporters on Friday: “While the UK believes that performers should be protected throughout their lifetime, a period of 95 years goes beyond what is needed to achieve this aim”.
Although welcoming the new provisos added by the Legal Affairs Committee, Lammy added that he didn’t feel the proposals went far enough to protect performers’ interests, implying he and his team will be looking to add more provisos as well as reduce the proposed new term length once McCreevy’s proposals reach the third and final stage – the aforementioned Council Of Ministers, at which Lammy will represent the UK.
As previously reported, while some sort of extension does now seem likely, some reckon the proposals could get delayed by the debate at the Council stage. Lammy’s comments seem to back that viewpoint.
