Vox Polis

You’re sick of reading about it and I’m sick of writing about it but copyright extension just won’t go away. After the Gower’s review recommended no extension to the copyright term for sound recordings I really thought we’d seen the back of this. Apparently not. This morning I read that 4500 musicians including Sir Cliff Richard and Katie Melua (now there’s a soporific duet) have signed an advert in the Financial Times calling again for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years. Is it just me or is this all getting a bit demeaning? My advice to the signatories of this advert: stop this pathetic grubbing around to wring out every last penny from your faded glories. If you want to make more money record some new songs, go on a tour, work as a musician. If that doesn’t work then do what the rest of us do and get a normal job.

In related news, independent music labels have apparently claimed that fair use copying rights (also called for in the Gowers review) could “open the floodgates” to a tidal wave of private copying and (shock, horror!) sharing. For the nth time: it’s unfair to make people pay for the same thing twice if they want to use it another way. It wouldn’t fly in any other industry and entertainment shouldn’t be treated any differently.

The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has brought the issue of copyright length into prominence in the past couple of months (and brought out swarms of music industry lobbyists). The BBC reported last night that the review is to recommend that copyright on sound recordings not be extended from the current period of 50 years. Whilst I am personally in favour of a significantly shorter terms the music industry, figure-headed by the likes of Sir Cliff Richard, had been lobbying for an extension to 95 years so a recommendation of no change does feel like a victory of sorts. The Review will be published next week as part of the Chancellors pre-budget report.

Via The Register.

After the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) last week the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) are the latest organisation to jump on what’s fast becoming a bandwagon of support for fair use copying rights. Taking a slightly different tack the BPI have suggested that fair use could be allowed via an authorization granted by rights holders rather than through a change in the law. The BPI have already announced that they won’t prosecute anyone for copying music from e.g. a CD to an MP3 player.

Whilst authorization would in a practical sense get rid of the problem there are a number of issues that it doesn’t solve. The first issue is constitutional, as Kay Withers of the IPPR put it “It’s good that the BPI have said they’re not going to prosecute but it should be the government deciding what the consumers and citizens rights are, rather than citizens.” The second issue is the question of whether and how this authorization can be granted retrospectively, I don’t see how changes to the licensing of CDs that have already been sold can be enacted without contacting all rights holders involved which would clearly be a mammoth task. The third issue is ‘future-proofing’, the BPI only speak on issues concerning music but the legality of personal copies of DVDs (and who knows what else in the long term) is also in question. All these problems can be solved by the government enshrining in law the right of UK citizens to make reasonable use of works protected by copyright.

As a bleak side-note - whilst I was writing this post it occurred to me that after the changes brought about by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which made all offences arrestable you could, presumably, be arrested, DNA sampled etc. for carrying an iPod that had music stored on that you’d ripped from your own CDs. Just something to think about.

Via Out-Law.com.

In a report released today the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) recommend changing UK copyright law to allow fair use copying. Currently activities such as copying a CD to an iPod are illegal in the UK due to the lack of a fair use provision in our copyright law (such as that found in the US). In addition they recommend keeping the copyright term for sound recordings at 50 years after the date of recording and allowing the British Library to circumvent anti-copying measures for archival purposes.

Given how much illegal activity there is, giving us fair use rights is long overdue. Having a law that is so widely flaunted weakens public understanding of (and adherence to) copyright law as a whole. Provisions for the British Library are also a good thing, although exactly what DRM encumbered fluff they feel the need to archive is a bit of a puzzle. As for leaving the copyright period alone I am personally of the opinion that the current terms are far too long but there doesn’t seem to be much public appetite for a change.

Update - the full report is available at the IPPR website.