Erhvervsudvalget 2008-09
KOM (2008) 0464 Bilag 4
Offentligt
648079_0001.png
Term Extension of Copyrights and
Related Rights
COM (2008) 464
BEUC statement
Contact:
Emilie Barrau –
[email protected]
BEUC Ref.:
X/076/2008 – 05/12/08
BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation,
www.beuc.eu
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
648079_0002.png
Summary
BEUC opposes the proposal presented by the European Commission aiming at extending
from 50 to 95 years the term of protection of performers and record producers for the
following reasons:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
it involves costs for consumers, competitors, innovators as well as for society as a
whole;
the proposal will not provide the benefits it claims will be provided for performers;
long terms of protection are counter-productive and a burden to innovation/hinder
production in the creative industries;
more and higher license fees would increase the price of services for consumers;
it impedes the move of content into the public domain;
it threatens consumers' access to knowledge;
with a long copyright term, most protected content would be commercially
unavailable, while more and higher license fees would increase the price of online
services for consumers;
this approach does not sufficiently facilitate the search for new business models or
address the need for the increased provision of legal content.
−
It is extremely important that artists of content such as music are justly compensated for
their work. We completely support that and in this sense welcome that the Commission has
opened up discussion on these issues. But we also find that longer intellectual property
protection is not the solution. Longer copyright protection will only be an extension of the
situation we are faced with now: an industry that is not incentivised to develop new ways of
doing business.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
648079_0003.png
Intellectual property rights (IPRs) aim to stimulate the creative industries by granting
temporary monopoly profits. The term of protection needs to carefully balance the incentives
to produce with the higher prices which result from it. Consumer organisations want a
competitive, innovative and balanced European intellectual property (IP) regime which
provides a fair return to creators and investors while imposing the minimum necessary
burden on the general public.
BEUC fully supports the right for artists to a fair protection and remuneration, longer
intellectual property protection is not the right solution to reach that aim and will have
significant negative consequences for European consumers and cultural industry/culture.
The right for artists to a fair protection and remuneration
Better protection of artists is indeed needed – especially of young music performers.
However, a “longer” term of protection does not mean “better” protection for artists.
Instead, the best way of improving performers’ earnings would be to ensure they receive a
fair share of the revenues generated from their creativity from the date of publication as
most earnings are likely to be in the early years following release. In addition, clearer rules
of transfer of rights to the benefit of performers, tackling unfair terms in recording contracts
and social protection measures should be considered to improve performers’ welfare.
Lack of conclusive evidence
Any development of copyright law should be based upon an independent assessment of the
costs and benefits to society as a whole. Any extension of the duration of intellectual
property rights should therefore be based on independent data proving the need for such an
extension.
The available empirical analysis
1
demonstrating the damaging effects of copyright term
extension has not been factored into the European Commission proposal. The Impact
Assessment
2
completely overlooks what the financial consequences of this extension will be
on European consumers (see below).
Furthermore, one has to keep in mind the rationale behind term extension i.e. to provide
producers with incentives for producing new sound recordings, by allowing them to recoup
investments that are needed for the production – without unduly restricting competition. One
may wonder if investments have not been recouped within the first 50 years whether
extending this period for an extra 45 years would make any sense….
On the contrary, all copyright terms should be reduced to fit more closely the time period
over which most of the returns on investments are normally made.
Costs for society as a whole
Recognising the social costs of monopoly rights, intellectual property rights (IPRs) have
always been limited both in time and in scope. This equilibrium should not put in jeopardy.
Shrinkage of the public domain content, cultural diversity & access to knowledge
Longer terms of protection will impede the move of content into the public domain, will
prevent its use by the public for an additional period of time and finally threaten consumers'
access to knowledge.
See in particular the Gowers Review - independent review into the UK Intellectual Property Framework, December
2006,
http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm
and the briefing of Nobel-prize winning economists to the United States Supreme Court in the Eldred v. Ashcroft
case,
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/supct/amici/economists.pdf
2
Impact assessment on the legal and economic situation of performers and record producers in the European Union,
23 April 2008
1
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
648079_0004.png
The public domain serves as a valuable (re)source for users, creators, researchers and
authors, who are inspired by older material or use it in new creations (e.g. songs remix).
Works in the public domain are also used as input to innovative content distribution models,
3
both commercial and not-for-profit
.
In addition, whereas tougher enforcement of intellectual property rights is conducted by
national and international policy-makers, any extension of the duration of protection would
be inconsistent with all the efforts made to encourage the development of and the legal
access to offers of creative content.
Higher prices for consumers
In its impact assessment
4
, the European Commission claims that between € 44 million and €
843 million Euros will be gained from copyright term extension without demonstrating where
this extra money will come from.
This increase will come from users and consumers. Monopoly prices – i.e. excessive prices -
will be charged for a longer period to consumers. In addition, the level of copyright levies will
rise as right holders will claim compensation for extra damage suffered as the period of time
during which their works can be copied will be longer.
With a long copyright term, most protected content would be commercially unavailable, while
more and higher license fees would increase the price of (online) services for consumers.
Burden to innovation in the creative industries
Long terms of protection are counter-productive and hinder production and innovation.
This would create a longer monopoly that would allow record producers to control (a)
reproductions that competitors are allowed to make, (b) certain secondary uses e.g. in new
media and for new online distribution channels as well as (c) distribution.
Ultimately, the development of new business models will be affected.
Chilling effect on new business models
The Commission’s approach does not sufficiently facilitate the search for new business
models or address the need for the increased provision of legal content.
Record producers need to adapt to the changing business environment. It is high time for the
European Commission to send the right signal and to foster work on innovative business
models enabling fair remuneration for performers and musicians. Reasonable tariffs and
conditions of access to legal and diversified content have to be encouraged.
Longer copyright certainly does not offer an appropriate response for right holders in aiding
their business of delivering globally competitive creative works to EU consumers.
In the end, it will be European consumers who will pay the price for extending the term of
protection, and who will fall victim if record producers have a century-long legal monopoly to
prevent and fight alternative, innovative and competing models of making music accessible.
END
M.M.M. van Eechoud, S.J. van Gompel, N. Helberger, P.B. Hugenholtz et al.), The Recasting of Copyright and
Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy, report to the European Commission, DG Internal Market, November
2006, 308 p., online available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/studies/studies_en.htm
4
Impact Assessment, page 60
3
4