Use it or Lose it: 15 years, not 35
p2pnet news view Music | Politics:- Earlier in the month, “Members of Britain’s new Featured Artists Coalition want the European Commission to help them recover their rights to their own music,” I posted here and in a2f2a.com.
As things stand, an EC “use it or lose it” copyright clause means recordings revert to performers if the producer or label no longer wants to market the recording — but only after half a century, I said, adding:
“However, FAC members, including Billy Bragg, today met with senior civil servants at the Intellectual Property Office in London in a bid to get the cause whittled down to 35 years”
Now, “I agree with the artists,” says Paul Kamp, vice president, business development and corporate counsel at Backbone Networks, a company specializing in internet radio automation services.
He goes on »»»
The act would reduce the term from 50 years to 35 years seems like a lot but with life expectancy being 70 years or so 35 years is half a lifetime. I would push for a shorter term than 35 years.
Here is my rationale:
- In the past there was a significant cost associated with publishing. This ranged from recording the work, manufacturing the record, distributing it to record stores, accounting for the inventory, selling off returns. With these costs in place the record companies were able to determine how economically viable it was to continue publishing because of the associated expense.
- Since the work is already recorded those costs are no longer part of the equation, they are sunk costs. Everything is about distribution. Yes, I know there is some cost associated with promotion but I think the critical thing is some type of availability. Further, it is often the artist that would do the promotion.
- In the age of digital distribution there is no reason for a producer or label to not publish a work. You can go to a “record service” like TuneCore and get the work published through digital distribution outlets like Amazon’s MP3 Store, Apple’s iTunes, etc. All for a cost of a little over $100/year.
- Promotion in the digital world could be fairly inexpensive too. The artist or record company could provide the works to Internet radio stations for broadcasting with links to purchase in the digital stores. All the Internet radio stations I know provide links to the digital works for purchase. For example, listen to Pandora on your iPhone, there is a link to purchase the track from the iTunes store. This is also true for Radio Paradise, Soma FM, AccuRadio , BAGeL Radio and all the stations on the networks we run. Pretty straight forward distribution and free promotion. Seems like there is no need to hold back on distribution after a work is recorded.
As a compromise, perhaps push for a shorter term, i.e. 15 years and have the artists pay for publishing and distribution. If it means something to the record companies I am sure they can come up with the fee to pay the digital distributor. There seems to be no reason to hold back on publishing the older works.
At least none that I can come up with.
Is there a reason to maintain these extended periods when the company is doing nothing to benefit from the work?
The switch to digital has impacted the whole music ecosystem from record companies to radio stations to record stores to promotion to bands to how everything gets packaged.
“Enabling the distribution rights to revert back to the artists would enable them to experiment with promotion and distribution,” says Paul, adding:
“The record companies, by their inaction on certain works, should relinquish their right over those works and let the artists who created those works benefit.”
He promises to post an article on the Backbone Networks blog about how “costs have transitioned dramatically”.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
November, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I think 5 years would be appropriate. If the publisher doesn’t have the time or motivation to publish, they deserve to lose the rights. The artist shouldn’t be deprived of their revenue by their business partners.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Well said EE.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Right! and when EXACTLY does it get into the public domain?? Nobody has said ANYTHING about that part!!
You know it’s great that the musicians can get their rights back, but what about OURS??
November 7th, 2009 at 8:08 am
“if the producer or label no longer wants to market the recording”
The issue now is not if the law is changed, but what the law says to implement the change. In other words, the mechanics.
I said in another related post that a 5-10 year period was right.
I must reconsider. 5-10 year period is too long, considering the new reality that marketing costs can be almost zero if no physical media is used to distribute the music. A song recording can be marketed by simply placing the recording for downloading on a web site.
Thus, a 3 year period is more reasonable.
Of course the issue id not if the recording is marketed. It is the payment of royalties. If no “adequate” royalty payments are received, the recording rights should revert to the “artist”.
What is an adequate royalty? I propose that it be 100 hours of work at minimum salary per year. In the USA, using a minimum salary of $7/hour, that would be $700 for each of last three years, or $2,100. If the artists has not been paid $2,100 in royalties for the past three years, he or she gets the ownership of the recording.
Contractually the arrangement can be improved for the artist (but not the label). If an artist can set the minimum at 1,000 hours ($21,000), fine. Perhaps major artists can have the negotiating clout to get whatever they want.
The more complex issue is who is the artist of an multiple artist recording?
This should be set in the recording contract. For example, for a rock band, it could be the band owner. For an orchestra recording it could be the director.