Copyright extension - a cartoon explanation

The IPKat would like to thank Glyn Wintle and Becky Hogge of the Open Rights Group for sending him a link to the following video. Becky writes:

"As you know, the Open Rights Group opposes this term extension. Industry lobbyists suggest that extending copyright term will help increase the welfare of performers and session musicians. But the Term Extension Directive, which will be voted on by the Legal Affairs Committee in a few weeks' time, will do no such thing. Instead it will hand millions of Euros over to the world's four major record labels, money that will come direct from the pockets of European consumers. The majority (80%) of recording artists will receive between E0.50 - E26 a year. Helping poor recording artists is a commendable aim. But the Term Extension Directive insults these good intentions: one leading intellectual property expert has called it a deliberate attempt on behalf of the European Commission to deceive Europe's Parliament.

The Open Rights Group have now developed a cartoon, explaining how copyright term extension will work (or otherwise!) for performers. I would be pleased if you thought it worthy of your readers' attention."

The IPKat is very much in agreement with the Open Rights Group on this issue, and wishes them be very best of luck in trying to scupper this proposed unnecessary extension. Any readers who are passionate about this issue should consider coming to an event the ORG are co-hosting inside the European Parliament at the end of this month. All are welcome, but registration is obligatory, via this link.

UPDATE: Justin Watts has emailed the IPKat to remind him about the event held by the AIPPI on 4 February on copyright extension.  More details available here
Copyright extension - a cartoon explanation Copyright extension - a cartoon explanation Reviewed by David Pearce on Saturday, January 17, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. Excellent. Thank you for making this available.
    Best regards

  2. A guy in my IP Licensing class argues that the extension is a good idea because record labels need more money so that they can give more advances to more artists. Thus, it benefits the artists by giving them a better chance of being "discovered". Anyone else heard any arguments along these lines? Thoughts?

  3. But surely you have to be discovered before you get an advance? Record companies are not well known for giving outs lots of money, are they, especially in advance? Sounds like a lot of rubbish to me.

  4. The web address below gives some more ideas on how the music industry could raise money

  5. I absolutely agree - save that I hate copyright being called "a monopoly" - it is merely a protection against copying.

    Indeed, I would go further, and create a compulsory licensing regime for recordings that are out of print - for a long time it was for example impossible to obtain the recordings of the works of "teh Young Tradition" - a culturally important group of singers from the UK folk revival int he 60s and 70s, and there are many significant artists over teh last 30 years who have likewise suffered, when there is both a market and a cultural need for their recordings - but entrepreneurs who have obtained copyright in recordings rooted in unfair contracts, and descended via the well known scandal of corporate insolvency not causing such rights to revert paralyse the rocordings. Significant artists who have suffered from this include Nic Jones and Vin Garbutt, both very well known folk musicians. The insolvency swindle badly affected the 60s band "the Small Faces" - and is widely thought to have been the inspiration for thier well known song "All or Nothing".


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.