My article on music and copyright extension was the lead media feature in the Business & Media section of The Observer today.
It’s an interesting issue. A number of musicians have recorded a video message to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, urging him to support the proposals. Obviously many of them are concerned about the loss of income from the expiry of copyright on their performances nearly 50 years ago.
On the face of it, they have a compelling argument. Why should music performances only receive copyright for 50 years, while songwriting and other forms of authorship receive 70 years from the date of death of the artist (it used to be 50 years from death but this was extended several years ago)?
On the other hand, surely it’s right that the actual creator of the song should be on a higher footing than the performers? The copyright on performances doesn’t just apply to music but to any performance, including acting and dance, unless the employment contracts say otherwise.
In general I’m wary of the current trend for copyright extension – and I’m in good company with some well-regarded experts arguing that copyright is broken and counter-productive. Personally I’m not against copyright in principle – it’s a useful tool and as a freelance writer, it’s how I get paid. However, the purpose of copyright is to reward artists for their work and to provide an incentive for them to create new work. The reason it’s not valid indefinitely is because there is a competing public interest for work to eventually wind up in the public domain. Imagine if no one could reproduce Shakespeare or create a derivative work based on his plays? It enriches our culture immensely to have this common artistic heritage and the debate on copyright extension is really about how long the public should wait until work enters the public domain.
