I've been canvassing my MEPs:
Dear MEPs,
I’m sure you are inundated by emails, so I will keep this as brief as possible. I’m writing because you represent me as Londoner, and as a businessman.
The European Commission has proposed to extend the term of copyright in sound recordings. While this move claims to be of benefit to performers, the truth is that these properties are more often owned by corporations, and the trend is that in the future these rights will be treated increasingly as traded commodities.
The value of these commodities means that there are strongly vested interests in this extension for very good commercial reasons, and these interests are lobbying hard to attain this extension for the same commercial reasons.
The counter view is of course coming from individuals like myself who believe our arguments are not being heard, as well as organisations such as ORG in the UK and the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property Law in Munich. The arguments are many, but I would like to focus on the commercial value of the residual copyright. The 45 year extension period has a quantifiable value. At present that ‘value’ is owned by us, the public. Why should this asset be given away to a small special interest group at the expense of the general public?
If Sony BMG asked you very nicely as MEPs to sign over my personal car to them, and you legislated to make this possible I would not vote for you. I might even drop by in person to explain just what I thought of you. Why then, should my right to listen to royalty free music be any different? It’s ours. Please keep it that way.
Best regards,
--------------
Anyhoo - a couple of interesting responses - Gerard Batten (UKIP) is supporting our cause, but Syed Kamall (Cons) replied with a copy of one of David Cameron’s speeches which left me wondering just how large a bung the conservatives have received from the lobby groups. I thought democracy was about upholding the rights of the people not selling them out – if this position was widely know pretty much anybody who owns an MP3 player would refuse to vote conservative. I replied:
Syed,
Thank you for getting back to me, and the speech was certainly interesting to read. Unfortunately these arguments bear all the hallmarks of coming strength from a BPI briefing document – they certainly ignore the wider arguments as well as almost all studies bar one done in this field in the last five years (and that one was commissioned by the BPI).
The argument that this is a move will counter the effects of music piracy is particularly interesting – this is a matter that has been much discussed in the music rights arena and the consensus is that any copyright extension will erode the respect of the public for intellectual property rights generally.
I hope you don’t mind if I attach a short briefing document setting out the arguments, as well as providing a more comprehensive set of references than David Cameron is likely to have received from the BPI.
Best regards,
----------------------
We (that is the ORG staffers) are going to be following this up with meetings in Brussels in the hope that we can somehow overturn this juggernaut before it all goes tits-up.
