In a surprise move the UK government joined others in a blocking minority, rejecting a compromise deal that would have delivered minimal benefits to performers. As a result a deal on copyright extension may not be reached by EU countries before the European Parliament first reading vote takes place shortly.

John Denham, secretary of state for innovation, said: “It is clear that today’s outcome will not kill off the proposals to extend copyright term, but rather that member states need more time to consider that details of the proposal and reach an agreement”. Reaction to the moves also came from the Featured Artists’ Coalition, a new musicians pressure group including members of Blur and Radiohead, who released a statement supporting the UK government’s position stating that the “compromise” would not be good for performers or fans.

The copyright term extension proposal is a bad deal for European consumers, musicians and follow-on innovators. Full plenary vote will take place soon in the European parliament, so contact your MEPs – see http://soundcopyright.eu/act for simple instructions – and let your government know copyright term extension is the wrong move.

Commissioner Charlie McCreevy’s announcement in February 2008 that he proposes to nearly double the term of copyright protection for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years came as a shock to UK digital rights campaigners. Back in 2006, here in the UK, the case against copyright term extension was robustly made – by campaigners such as my organisation, the Open Rights Group, and more importantly, by economists from one of the UK’s leading universities. It led to a firm commitment from our Government that they would never seek to extend copyright term retrospectively.

There is no case for copyright term extension. Term extension would reduce, yet again, the size of the public domain, harming public access to old material and chilling the creation of new works that build upon the past. The only beneficiaries will be the owners of a limited number of valuable back-catalogues – the majors and a very few lucky performers – who will receive windfall gains at the public’s expense and at the expense of future innovators. That the UK government finally recognised this looked like a line in the sand for IP reformists. Professor Lawrence Lessig, whose own gambit to stop copyright term in the US failed despite his having the backing of two Nobel-prize winning economists – called the work of the Open Rights Group “proof that we cynics were wrong”.

So what happened? The UK publication Music Week, the local gazette for the band of musicians, record label bosses and collecting societies who are pushing an extension in term, summed it up well when it observed last week that people need to “keep faith in the lobbying process, which has been ongoing in Europe”. The battle against term extension is fought by unequal sides. Those who are for it are a coherent group of people with something singular and immediate to gain, as well as significant funds to invest in their lobbying efforts. Those who are against term extension – and that should be anyone with an interest in access to the public domain – are a large, disparate mass who will benefit from sensible copyright laws and a healthy public domain in many different ways.

That lobbyists have had their way with McCreevy should be obvious; the proposal to extend term flies in the face of the iVIR study (quoted in last EDRI-gram), a piece of research commissioned by McCreevy’s own Directorate Generale, DG MARKT. But we should not give up. If past experience is anything to go by, it will take two things to expose McCreevy’s mercantilism: evidence that term extension will do little to benefit regular session musicians and other performers, and evidence that Europeans care about this issue. We have the former. And we are gaining the latter.

At the campaign website Soundcopyright.eu, launched in February by the Open Rights Group and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, over 8,000 people have already signed a petition which demands that the EU take account of all stakeholders when devising copyright policy. If you believe that copyright policy should be decided on the basis of evidence, and not on the basis of who lobbies the hardest, please add your voice to theirs.

Sound Copyright – Don’t Let the Record Labels Break Their Promise

Open Rights Group and EFF launch Europe-wide anti-term extension petition
(29.02.2008)

EDRi-gram : Extension of the copyright term for performers proposed to the
EC (27.02.2008)

via EDRI-gram newsletter – Number 6.5, 12 March 2008
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License

Spanish courts have upheld three times already the validity of music free licenses. In the three cases, the Sociedad General de Autores (SGAE), Spanish music copyright collecting society, sued some open public premises on alleged rights to the music listened therein.

In all the three cases, the defences demonstrated that the music played was downloaded from the Internet and was under free licenses. The Spanish system presumes that SGAE holds the right to represent all authors, unless the contrary is proven.

The defendants in the three cases proved that the music downloaded from Internet and burnt into CDs was carefully chosen as free licensed music.

In the first resolution, dated on the 2 February 2006, the term “Copy left” appears for first time in a Spanish resolution. The SGAE asked for levies to Ladinamo, a copyfighter cultural association dedicated to spread Copyleft. Ladinamo demonstrated the music played in its premises was Copyleft, so no levy should be paid, which was accepted by Madrid Mercantile Court no. 5. SGAE announced an appeal but finally did not formalize it and the final decision was declared by a further court resolution dated 24 April.

The second case occurred in Badajoz on 17 February where First Instance Court no. 6 ruled the music played in the disco bar Metropol was licensed under Creative Commons. It is clear from the decision that music was downloaded from Internet from diverse websites, although it makes no reference to streaming or burning. As in the Ladinamo case, SGAE lastly did not file the appeal although it also announced it.

On the 30 March, Madrid Mercantile Court no. 1 stated that SGAE was not entitled to claim levies from Buena Vistilla Club Social, another cultural association, as the music performed in its premises was not managed by SGAE. No term Copyleft nor Creative Commons is used in the sentence but the ruling is clear to admit that music downloaded from the Internet and burnt in CDs to allow its public performance should not have any payment as it was proven the authors were not SGAE members nor belonged to another society that had representation agreements with the SGAE.

EDRI – Creative Commons license upheld in Dutch and Spanish courts (29.03.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.6/ccdecisions

Full text of the Madrid Mercantile no. 5 court decision (in Spanish only, 02.02.2006)
http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/373

Full text of the Badajoz court decision (in Spanish only, 17.02.2006)
http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/374

Full text of the Madrid Mercantile no. 1 court decision (in Spanish only, 30.03.2006)
http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/375