The Sun Never Shines on the Poor
Posted by scott on November 27th, 2008“If I only had a dollar for every song I’ve sung/ I’d catch the next train back to where I live.” - John Fogerty (’Lodi’ - Creedence Clearwater Revival)
A bunch of musicians this week sent a video message to prime Minister, Gordon Brown, urging him and the government to support plans by the European Commission to amend Directive 2006/116/EC and extend the term of protection for recorded performances from 50 to 95 years. [Warning: the video make bring a tear to your eye]. The mood is summed up by Session musician, Derek Wadsworth who played on tracks by the Beatles and Stones, who has called on the government “to help us out a little bit and show perhaps a bit of gratitude.” Until now, he reckoned they have chosen “to kick us in the face and ignore our campaign.”
The extension is needed because otherwise all these performers and session artists are all going to be destitute and have to resort to busking to get their next meal. Regular readers will be aware of my view on this. Look up the meaning of copyright in a dictionary. In fact, let me do it for you. This is from the Oxford English Dictionary
1. The exclusive right given by law for a certain term of years to an author, composer, designer, etc. (or his assignee), to print, publish, and sell copies of his original work.
2. attrib. or adj. Protected by copyright; not allowed by law to be printed or copied except by permission of the author, designer, etc.
3. Comb. copyright act, law; copyright library, any of the libraries entitled to receive one free copy of each book, pamphlet, map, music sheet or score, and periodical published in the United Kingdom
Now, what the musicians would like is for us to add a number 4 in here:
4. Pension plan.
No matter how many times I say this, the fact remains that copyright protection / related rights protection is not a pension plan, nor was it intended to be. In the instance we talking about here, the rights were granted to act as an incentive to produce new recordings by allowing those producing the sound recordings to recoup the investment. Apparently 50 years in not enough to do so, so the best incentive to produce new recordings is to give the producers (and here read the record labels) almost 100 years to recoup that investment.
It is a widely accepted that most recordings have no commercial value after 50 years, indeed most have no commercial value after 20 years, so if you haven’t recouped your investment by 20 years, the chances are you are just not going to do so at all. If we accept this then the number of performers who are going to benefit from this proposed term extension shrinks quite substantially. It will benefit the record companies: the very same record companies that sit on what is estimated to be over 90% of their back-catalogue material - which they have decided have no value.
Of course if the EU manages to get its way, then whether or not Gordon is swayed will not matter a jot. In Europe the Committee on Legal Affairs has produced a draft report on the Commission’s proposals, and each of the Committees for Culture and Education, Industry, Research and Energy, and Internal Market and Consumer Protection have produced opinions on the proposals. All back the proposals, although some wish to make amendments to the Commission’s plans. Primarily these take the form of extended the time a performer has to exploit their work before it falls out of copyright from 1 to 5 years, and allowing the record companies to recoup costs from the fund they will have to create during the extended term to pay session musicians etc, and widening the scope of the directive to also increase protection for audio-visual recording.
Now, the idea of creating a fund with the recording industry putting aside 20% of revenue and once a year dividing it up between all the eligible performers sounds like a great idea, but even the Commission’s own figures say that the average unknown session musician will only benefit to the tune of between 4 and 58 Euros a year. The well established performers, such as my old mate, Sir Cliff Richard, will pocket considerably more of course.
The draft report - penned by Ireland’s Brain Crowley - contains two priceless gems that are worthy of further comment:
“[T]he current disparity between the term of protection in the EU and the US clearly puts European record companies and performers at a competitive disadvantage”
European Record Companies … waits five minutes for the laughter to subside….
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the industry dominated by just 4 Multi-national companies: Warner, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal ? The very same 4 companies that hold most of the rights we are arguing about - as the performers would have signed over their rights for a fee when the recording was made. Also, the competitive disadvantage argument is rubbish. European Performers who release recording in the US get the US 95 year protection, just as - in turn - US artists releasing recordings in Europe get our current 50 year protection. No one is disadvantaged. The protection is equal. It also overlooks the fact that in Europe if a song is played on the radio, both the composers and the performers get paid, whereas in the US it is only the composers (although once again this evens up if performers release recordings in both territories).
“The vast majority of performers has (the doc says that, not a typo by me, for a change) very little access to social security, unemployment compensation or health and safety protection and is generally confronted with widespread unfair contractual practices”
Where does this vast majority live exactly, that they apparently are prevented for getting social security benefits etc (if needed) ? This really is a quite preposterous statement. The contract issue is of course a valid one, but it should have no bearing on the question of protection for recorded performances, as whether or not a performer got screwed by his/her record company when signing their contract has nothing to do with whether or not the term of protection for recorded performances should be extended from 50 to 95 years.
Personally, I think the Commission needs to widen its scope a bit more. How about including computer programmers, book printers, and house builders in the coverage. For example, why can’t builders get a royalty each time the house they built is sold or let ??
The easy answer is: because it would be stupid.
They have been paid to do a job - building the house - they do it, and move on. Hold on a second … isn’t that what session musicians do? Turn up, do job, get paid - your basic ‘work for hire’ deal? And yet we have decided that they should (in theory, if that hadn’t signed away the rights to the record companies) get paid when their songs are played on the radio etc for 50 years after they first did the work. Sounds like a great deal. Get paid for 95 years (so lots of dead people’s estates can get paid) even better. How could anyone seriously argue that the extention is not richly deserved. Not Sir Cliff and the major record companies, that’s for sure.
Recent Comments