Common sense beats Copyright

Excellent news - the government has rejected plans to extend British copyright law beyond its current 50-year limit, although this Yahoo article doesn't give space to anyone who's positive about the decision - not even any of the MPs who made the decision get any column inches.

Instead, all the quotes are from wounded pot/kettle industry executives accusing the government of failing to respect artists and performers.

"The UK is a world-beating source of great music, so it is frustrating that on the issue of copyright term the government has shown scant respect for British artists and the UK recording industry," John Kennedy, head of the IFPI body which represents the international recording industry, said in a statement.

"Some of the greatest works of British music will soon be taken away from the artists who performed them and the companies that invested in them."

Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the British recorded music industry, said the government had failed its test to show support for British music.

"We will continue to put forward the strong case for fair copyright in Europe," he said. "It is profoundly disappointing that we are forced to do so without the backing of the British government."

The Register, meanwhile, give significantly more time (that being any at all) to the 11-page government report, as well as the cash-grabbing disappointment of obsolete musicians and space-wasting executives.

The government disagreed, citing the independent Gowers Review, in which ex-Financial Times editor Andrew Gowers probed the issue.

"The review... concluded that an extension would not benefit the majority of performers, most of whom have contractual relationships requiring their royalties be paid back to the record label," said ministers.

"[Gowers] considered not just the impact on the music industry but on the economy as a whole, and concluded that an extension would lead to increased costs to industry, such as those who use music – whether to provide ambience in a shop or restaurant or for TV or radio broadcasting – and to consumers... the review took account of the question of parity with other countries such as the US, and concluded that, although royalties were payable for longer there, the total amount was likely to be similar – or possibly less – as there were fewer revenue streams available under the US system."

The government position attracted vocal opposition from some artists. The BBC quotes 63-year-old groovester Roger Daltrey - whose first works will go out of copyright in seven years - as saying that musicians "enriched people's lives", and that they were "not asking for a handout, just a fair reward for their creative endeavours".

The Guardian quoted Fran Nevrkla, kingpin of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), the outfit which collects the rakeoff from clubs, restaurants, and broadcasters: "This announcement effectively makes all performers and record companies second class citizens," he said.

IFPI spokesman John Kennedy said: "[...]Extending copyright term would promote vital investment in young talent and new music, all of which will help to secure the UK's future..."

Copyright as a Venn diagram

Patent and trademark attorney Erik J. Heels drew this diagram to help explain copyright to a friend's daughter, who was shadowing him for a school project.

In this drawing, I attempt to explain the wonderful world of copyright law. As an aside, I think that all intellectual property (i.e. patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret) lawyers like writing about copyright. Because we're all familiar with stuff that copyright protects - books, movies, CDs, DVDs, radio, TV, and the like. Even if, like me, they don't practice copyright law.

What most people don't appreciate is that there are three types of uses of copyrighted stuff. And not all of those rights are protected by (and hence can be legally controlled by) the copyright owner. Have you ever seen a copyright notice that says "It is illegal to make a copy of this copyrighted document." Well, that's not true, because it excludes fair use. I've often thought that the Copyright Act should be amended to say that all copyright rights are forfeit if an incorrect copyright notice is placed on a work. But that will never happen.

A complete explanation of the diagram, which is a simplification of the entire system, is along with the original drawing on Erik's site.

On the plus side...

I tend to go on about it a little too much, but even I have to admit that on occasion copyright does bring a smile to my face.

Four inmates of Oklahoma's El Reno federal prison were yesterday indicted for what must rate as the most audicious prison break scheme in history, the Washington Post reports.

Clayton Heath Albers, Carl Ervin Batts, Barry Dean Bischof and Russell Dean Landers are alleged to have copyrighted their names then "demanded millions of dollars from prison officials for using the names without authorisation".

Optimal copyright term is 14 years

According to a study by Rufus Pollock, an economics PhD candidate at Cambridge University, the most economically sensible copyright term is a staggering... fourteen years.

The entire paper, titled "Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright", will be presented in Berlin this week, but it's already available for download as a 256k .pdf file from Pollock's website.

Warning: I just had a quick flick through it, and there's a lot of Greek symbols in the latter half of the thing.

David Cameron can fuck off

This speech is nothing but lies, half-truths and PR spin.

If we increase the copyright term, so the incentive is there for you working in the industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which more people can enjoy at no extra cost.

That's why, as we move on forward into the new digital age of the 21st century, I am pleased to announce today that it is Conservative Party policy to support the extension of the copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.

How, exactly, would extending copyright to 70 years be better for the music industry?

For a start, we've got to look at why copyright exists in the first place.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to contribute artistic/literal/musical works by promising them a financial reward if their work is a success. However, the current copyright model means that, in addition to providing a reward for creation for the entire lifetime of the artist, the artist's family (or in practice, their publisher/record company) can also benefit from the work.

If a person has a successful enough work, they never have to contribute again, which it could be argued actually reduces the incentive to continue creating music or writing books or what have you.

It's utterly misleading of Cameron - or anyone else, for that matter - to suggest that increasing the duration of copyright would assist living musicians or writers more than it already does. And extension of copyright would do nothing but pay record label executives for the next 70 years.

I don't want to abolish copyright, but there's ways to make money by giving your stuff away for free, especially in this age of the internet. A musician can put an album online and distribute it worldwide for next to nothing (compared to CD shipping, at least). An author can publish online and have thousands of people read their work; if it's good enough, then enough people will pay for it to make you a profit.

Exposure is priceless, and copyright tries to limit the number of people who can read/listen to your stuff until they can pay for it. It should really be the other way around.