Directive 2011/77/EU: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Typo patrol, typos fixed: Commision → Commission, Intelectual → Intellectual using AWB |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== Argument for the Proposal == |
== Argument for the Proposal == |
||
The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK (cited by the European |
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 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. |
||
<ref>http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf Price Waterhouse The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK, (report commissioned by the BPI), 2006</ref> |
<ref>http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf Price Waterhouse The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK, (report commissioned by the BPI), 2006</ref> |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Argument against the Proposal == |
== Argument against the Proposal == |
||
The Gowers review of |
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]] [http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/gowers_review_index.htm] Andrew Gowers The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property pg 50 section 4.29</ref> |
||
Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, report commissioned by the European Commission concluded that the arguments for copyright extension were not convincing.<ref>[http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf] Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, Natali Helberger, Nicole Dufft, Stef Van Gompel, Bernt HegenHoltz, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam</ref> |
Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, report commissioned by the European Commission concluded that the arguments for copyright extension were not convincing.<ref>[http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf] Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, Natali Helberger, Nicole Dufft, Stef Van Gompel, Bernt HegenHoltz, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam</ref> |
||
Revision as of 20:52, 23 May 2010
The European Union Commission has proposed on 16 July 2008 to extend the length of the copyright on recordings to 95 years from 50 years.[1] The European Parliament modified the proposal to be 70 years instead and passed it on 23 April 2009.[2] The remaining step to this becoming law is approval by the Council of Ministers.[3]
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[4] is 50 years after publishing the performance, or 50 years after the performance if it is not published.
Argument for the Proposal
The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK (cited by the European Commission)[5] 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. [6]
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."[7]
Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, report commissioned by the European Commission concluded that the arguments for copyright extension were not convincing.[8]
References
- ^ EUROPA - Press Releases - Intellectual Property: Commission adopts forward-looking package
- ^ EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission welcomes Parliament vote on copyright term
- ^ Arstechnica Article
- ^ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0116:EN:NOT Article 3.1
- ^ EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension – Frequently Asked Questions (see , IP/08/1156)
- ^ http://www.ipo.gov.uk/report-termextension.pdf Price Waterhouse The Impact of Copyright Extension for Sound Recordings in the UK, (report commissioned by the BPI), 2006
- ^ Gowers Review of Intellectual Property [1] Andrew Gowers The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property pg 50 section 4.29
- ^ [2] Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recording is a Bad Idea, Natali Helberger, Nicole Dufft, Stef Van Gompel, Bernt HegenHoltz, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam
Links
- Term of Protection Page
- Proposed Text
- British Recorded Music Industry statement
- [3] [4] BBC News articles on proposed extension.
- Slashdot Article
- Arstechnica Article
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]