Re: [ARSCLIST] Some potential bad news ...

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael H. Gray" <mhgray@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Europe to extend music copyright
> EC proposes extension to 95 years
> By IAN MUNDELL
> BRUSSELS - Plans to extend European performers' copyright protection
> from 50 to 95 years will be put forward by the European Commission
> before the summer.
> 
> The aim is to ensure that airplay royalties continue at least for the
> lifetime of the performer, whether they are stars or unknown session
> musicians.
> 
> Charlie McCreevy, the commissioner responsible, said Thursday that
> record companies will be required to set up a fund reserving at least
> 20% of the income during the extended copyright term to session
> musicians.
> 
> For featured artists, original advances would no longer be set off
> against royalties in the extended term. The artist would get the lot.
> 
> The proposals will also contain a "use it or lose it" provision: if a
> record company is unwilling to re-release a performance during the
> extended term, the performer can move to another label.
> 
> The commission judges that its plan will not have a negative impact on
> consumer prices, and that most of the additional revenue collected would
> stay in Europe.
> 
Actually, somebody or bodies is hopelessly confused here...probably
with the full intent of the recording industry...?!

The copyright on a sound recording per se has NOTHING to do with the
payment of royalties to recording artists...at least in most cases
of recordings over 50 years old. These copyrights belong TO THE
RECORD COMPANY (or its legal heirs/successors)...and NOT to the
artists (unless their ownership was specifically guaranteed by
any applicable contracts involved...?!)...

In North America...and, I suspect (but can't say ansolutely) in
most other lands, a sound recording is(was) considered a "work
for hire" by the party/ies who were usually paid a fixed sum
to cut x-many recordings. In a VERY few cases, "star-level"
artists were guaranteed royalties on record(etc.) sales. However,
over that last few decades (can't say exactly when), musicians'
unions began demanding standard contracts which did/do guarantee
royalties paid on sales...

So, a change such as discussed in the original message would NOT
bring any money to those artists whose records were cut in 1956
or previous! It would simply give the companies (mostly multi-
national, often-merged, gigantic operations...?!) either the
right to extort royalty money from those (including any original
artists, if they DON'T own their old recordings...?!) who wish
to place these old recordings before a very-limited "interested
public"...or, in a worst-case-scenario (common in the US of A),
make it legally impossible to reissue any recordings made in
1912 (EVER, in the case of the US of A...?!)!

Note that this change was (IIRC) voted down in the UK! Also,
note that the parties pushing for this extenstion:

1) Never address the problem that they are trying to enforce
"retroactive change" (i.e., if one uses a copy made...entirely
legally...a month before this law is enacted...IF it is...it
becomes a complicated legal question as to its validity...?!)

2) Always try to bring up the (false) "image" of some hapless
recording artist starving in penury who will somehow be rolling
in money if the change is enacted! The realities are that (1)
the artist isn't entitled to, and won't get, any royalties on
his 50.5-year-old recordings even if they ARE re-copyrighted,
and (2) the poverty is usually the record company's fault in
the first place!

What scares me, though, is that the world-wide recording
industry MAY try to legally establish that every sound
recording is to be protected under the law of the country
where it was made as well as any country where copies were
sold! This would make the draconian US of A law applicable to
virtually every sound recording of interest...?!

Steven C. Barr