Jump to content

Directive 2011/77/EU: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Martsniez (talk | contribs)
328 edits
→External links: Added titles to links that were missing titles.
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Directive 2011/77/EU on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights''' amended [[Directive 2006/116/EC]] and extended copyright terms of recordings from 50 to 70 years. It was passed by the [[Council of the European Union]] on 12 September 2011<ref>[http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/term-protection/index_en.htm#maincontentSec1 Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights].</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Brussels, 12 September 2011 New rules on term of protection of music recordings|url = http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/11/303&type=HTML|website = europa.eu|access-date = 2016-02-20}}</ref> after the [[European Parliament]] passed it on 23 April 2009 establishing a term of 70 years,<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/627&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission welcomes Parliament vote on copyright term<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> lower than the 95 years the European Union Commission had proposed on 16 July 2008.<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1156&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr EUROPA - Press Releases - Intellectual Property: Commission adopts forward-looking package<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
'''Directive 2011/77/EU on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights''' amended [[Directive 2006/116/EC]] and extended copyright terms of recordings from 50 to 70 years. It was passed by the [[Council of the European Union]] on 12 September 2011<ref>[http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/term-protection/index_en.htm#maincontentSec1 Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights].</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Brussels, 12 September 2011 New rules on term of protection of music recordings|url = http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/11/303&type=HTML|website = europa.eu|access-date = 2016-02-20}}</ref> after the [[European Parliament]] passed it on 23 April 2009 establishing a term of 70 years,<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/627&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en EUROPA – Press Releases – Commission welcomes Parliament vote on copyright term<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> lower than the 95 years the [[European Commission]] had proposed on 16 July 2008.<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1156&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr EUROPA - Press Releases - Intellectual Property: Commission adopts forward-looking package<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


== Purpose of the extension ==
== Purpose of the extension ==
The stated purpose of the extension of the recording [[copyright term]] is to "bring performers' protection more in line with that already given to authors - 70 years after their death." The term in Directive 2006/116/EC<ref>http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0116:EN:NOT Article 3.1</ref> is 50 years after publishing the performance, or 50 years after the performance if it is not published.
The stated purpose of the extension of the recording [[copyright term]] is to "bring performers' protection more in line with that already given to authors - 70 years after their death." The term in Directive 2006/116/EC<ref>{{CELEX|32006L0116|format=HTML|text=Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights}}, article 3.1 (Duration of related rights)</ref> is 50 years after publishing the performance, or 50 years after the performance if it is not published.


== Argument for the proposal ==
== Argument for and against==


The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK (cited by the European Commission)<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension – Frequently Asked Questions (see , IP/08/1156)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> suggested that the extension to 95 years would increase revenue by £2.2 million to £34.9
The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK (cited by the European Commission)<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension – Frequently Asked Questions (see , IP/08/1156)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> suggested that the extension to 95 years would increase revenue by £2.2 million to £34.9
million in present value terms over the next ten year. It also suggested that there would "prices of in-copyright and out-of-copyright sound recordings are not significantly different" so that consumers would not be impacted.
million in present value terms over the next ten years. It also suggested that the "prices of in-copyright and out-of-copyright sound recordings are not significantly different" so that consumers would not be impacted.
<ref>{{cite paper|url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf |author=Price Waterhouse |title=The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK |work=(report commissioned by the BPI) |year=2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111006232205/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf |archivedate=2011-10-06 |df= }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf |author=Price Waterhouse |title=The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK |journal=(report Commissioned by the BPI) |year=2006 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111006232205/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf |archivedate=2011-10-06 }}</ref>


⚫
The Gowers review of Intellectual Property stated that "is not clear that extension of term would benefit musicians and performers very much in practice."<ref>[[Gowers Review of Intellectual Property]] {{cite web |url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/gowers_review_index.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2010-04-07 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407181602/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/gowers_review_index.htm |archivedate=2010-04-07 }} Andrew Gowers The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property pg 50 section 4.29</ref> An article written by Dutch academics and published in the European Intellectual Property Review, ''Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea'', concluded that the arguments for copyright extension were not convincing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf |title=Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea |first1=Natali |last1=Helberger |first2=Nicole |last2=Dufft |first3=Stef |last3=Van Gompel |first4=Bernt |last4=Hugenholtz |publisher=Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam |access-date=2009-12-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090725152841/http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf |archive-date=2009-07-25 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
== Argument against the proposal ==

The Gowers review of Intellectual Property stated that "is not clear that extension of term would benefit musicians and performers very much in practice."<ref>[[Gowers Review of Intellectual Property]] {{cite web |url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/gowers_review_index.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2010-04-07 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407181602/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/gowers_review_index.htm |archivedate=2010-04-07 |df= }} Andrew Gowers The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property pg 50 section 4.29</ref>

⚫
A article written by Dutch academics and published in the European Intellectual Property Review, ''Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea'', concluded that the arguments for copyright extension were not convincing.<ref>{{cite paper |url=http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf |title=Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea |first=Natali |last=Helberger |first2=Nicole |last2=Dufft |first3=Stef |last3=Van Gompel |first4=Bernt |last4=Hugenholtz |publisher=Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam }}</ref>


== See also ==
== See also ==
Line 28: Line 24:
* [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20090422IPR54191+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN Music copyright to be extended to 70 years for performers]
* [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20090422IPR54191+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN Music copyright to be extended to 70 years for performers]


Directive in the news
Directive in the news:
* [http://www.bpi.co.uk/our-work/policy-and-lobbying/article/about-us-child-child.aspx British Recorded Music Industry statement]
* [http://www.bpi.co.uk/our-work/policy-and-lobbying/article/about-us-child-child.aspx British Recorded Music Industry statement]
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7244928.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3547788.stm] BBC News articles on proposed extension.
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7244928.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3547788.stm] BBC News articles on proposed extension.
* [http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/08/02/14/1626228/EU-Commissioner-Proposes-95-year-Copyright Slashdot Article]
* [http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/08/02/14/1626228/EU-Commissioner-Proposes-95-year-Copyright Slashdot Article]
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/eu-extends-musical-copyrights-by-20-years-eyes-movies-next.ars Arstechnica Article]
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/eu-extends-musical-copyrights-by-20-years-eyes-movies-next.ars Arstechnica Article]
* [http://www.out-law.com/page-9269]
* [http://www.out-law.com/page-9269 Out-law.com: Special Reports Sign in to my account Topics Intellectual Property European Commission proposes copyright extension Directive]
* http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/04/06/o-no-not-again-term-extension/
* http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/04/06/o-no-not-again-term-extension/


Latest revision as of 15:28, 21 October 2023

Directive 2011/77/EU on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights amended Directive 2006/116/EC and extended copyright terms of recordings from 50 to 70 years. It was passed by the Council of the European Union on 12 September 2011[1][2] after the European Parliament passed it on 23 April 2009 establishing a term of 70 years,[3] lower than the 95 years the European Commission had proposed on 16 July 2008.[4]

Purpose of the extension

[edit]

The stated purpose of the extension of the recording copyright term is to "bring performers' protection more in line with that already given to authors - 70 years after their death." The term in Directive 2006/116/EC[5] is 50 years after publishing the performance, or 50 years after the performance if it is not published.

Argument for and against

[edit]

The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK (cited by the European Commission)[6] suggested that the extension to 95 years would increase revenue by £2.2 million to £34.9 million in present value terms over the next ten years. It also suggested that the "prices of in-copyright and out-of-copyright sound recordings are not significantly different" so that consumers would not be impacted. [7]

The Gowers review of Intellectual Property stated that "is not clear that extension of term would benefit musicians and performers very much in practice."[8] An article written by Dutch academics and published in the European Intellectual Property Review, Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, concluded that the arguments for copyright extension were not convincing.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.
  2. ^ "European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Brussels, 12 September 2011 New rules on term of protection of music recordings". europa.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  3. ^ EUROPA – Press Releases – Commission welcomes Parliament vote on copyright term
  4. ^ EUROPA - Press Releases - Intellectual Property: Commission adopts forward-looking package
  5. ^ Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, article 3.1 (Duration of related rights)
  6. ^ EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension – Frequently Asked Questions (see , IP/08/1156)
  7. ^ Price Waterhouse (2006). "The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK" (PDF). (report Commissioned by the BPI). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-10-06.
  8. ^ Gowers Review of Intellectual Property "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-04-07. Retrieved 2010-04-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Andrew Gowers The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property pg 50 section 4.29
  9. ^ Helberger, Natali; Dufft, Nicole; Van Gompel, Stef; Hugenholtz, Bernt. "Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea" (PDF). Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-07-25. Retrieved 2009-12-31.
[edit]

Directive in the news:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Directive_2011/77/EU&oldid=1181206925"