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