[ARSCLIST] Letter on British Copyright Term Extension

[Tim Brooks <Tbroo@xxxxxxx>]

The British government is being heavily lobbied by the recording companies to 
extend the copyright term for recordings there from the present 50 years to 
as much as 95, and make it retroactive.  That would pretty much shut down the 
UK's historic reissue industry.  There have been a number of pro and con 
letters in the British papers.  Cliff Richard (the UK's Sonny Bono?) has been making 
the rounds on behalf of the record companies urging extension, so he can keep 
getting royalties from his 1950s hits.  

ARSC member David Patmore was asked by CHARM, a consortium of English 
universities interested in record preservation and study, to write a position paper 
on the subject for submission to Andrew Gowers, who is studying the matter for 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer.  After supplying David with some information, 
I decided to write a letter myself and, to my surprise, the Times of London 
printed it last Thursday(abridged), with mention of ARSC.  See the link below.  
Following that is the full letter as submitted.

I encourage others on the list to get involved before this is decided!  Here 
are some addresses David supplied me:
letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letters.editor@xxxxxx  (The Financial Times)
letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letters@ independent.co.uk 
They all ask for any correspondence to be accompanied by the sender's name, 
postal address and daytime telephone number.
Tim Brooks
Copyright & Fair Use Committee
(my thanks to committee member Dick Spottswood for his input.)

In a message dated 5/11/2006 5:09:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
davidpatmore@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Hi Tim - the letter is in today's issue of The Times as a leading item on the 
letters page, p. 18. 
It reads very powerfully - the only cut has been the names of the record 
companies.
It's also on the web at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2174469,00.html
I have two copies of this issue and will bring them to Seattle - look forward 
to seeing you there.
Very best wishes and many thanks again for your greatly valued support - 
David.
To the Editor:

As Britons consider the appeals of the large record companies to lengthen the 
copyright term for recordings from its present 50 years to as much as 95, I 
hope they will consider–and learn about–the disastrous cultural consequences 
such long periods of exclusivity have had in the United States.  This matter is 
currently under review by Mr. Andrew Gowers for the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer.

According to a recent study rights holders in the U.S. have made available 
only 10% of the most historic pre-1955 recordings they control, either 
themselves or by licensing to others.  Moreover this figure is heavily weighted toward 
more recent periods (the 1940s and 1950s); as one goes further back the 
percentage dwindles to almost nothing.  What the record companies really want is the 
small fraction of older recordings that can still make them lots of money.  
The rest they bury.

Ethnic and minority musics are particularly hard hit, since they are not big 
money makers.  According to the study most of the historic blues recordings 
available in the U.S. came from overseas labels (including the U.K.) or illegal 
issues, not the "rights holders."  While doing research for a book on the 
earliest (pre-1920) black recording artists I was startled to learn than most of 
those recordings are still controlled by modern corporations, who have made 
available fewer than one percent of them.  The book, appropriately, is called 
Lost Sounds.

Britain is home to some of the best and most respected historic reissue 
labels in the world, including Document and Pearl.  They are where most Americans 
hear their own recorded history, since it is buried by copyright law in their 
own country.  This industry will be shut down, or severely curtailed, if the 
major labels get their way, and don't count on the majors to take their place.

Sir Cliff Richard says it is "only fair" that he should reap royalties from 
his earliest recordings for a century or so.  But most artists, especially 
early ones, had to sign away their rights just to get recorded.  Long copyright 
terms mainly benefit recording companies, not long-ago artists or their heirs.  
And ultimately the ability to live off the past will make British companies 
less, not more, competitive.  Why take the risks needed to develop the next 
Beatles when you can milk the old ones indefinitely?

Copyright is supposed to balance the rights of creators with those of history 
and society.  In recent years there has been a backlash against overly long 
copyright terms in the U.S., as the public realizes it was sold out for the 
special interests.  I hope the British public does not allow itself to be 
similarly swindled.

Tim Brooks
Chair, Copyright & Fair Use Committee, Association for Recorded Sound 
Collections
Greenwich, CT USA