Legal Research

Burnham?s related rights and wrongs

By scott

Back in December I had one of my rants about the proposal the extend the protection in sound recordings . Following that rant, Andrew Gowers and Andy Burham traded letters in the FT, with Gowers calling Burhams position ’silly’. What follows is most of Burhams response and my comments on it.

Burham begins by stating that whilst Gowers was not convinced of the moral case, the government we were, on two important points.

“First, there has always been a moral case at the heart of copyright law. If someone produces exceptional work in their 20s that is still being listened to 50 years later, it is right that their earnings from it are not suddenly cut off when they are in their 70s. The argument here is that the person who creates a work should be able to enjoy the value of that for the duration of his or her natural life.”

You would think reading Mr Burnham that performers have been blissfully unaware of their copyright protection, and woke up when someone suddenly told them they only have 50 years and that it is up tomorrow. This is not the case and Mr Burnham is frankly an idiot for even suggesting as much. He also misses the point. Most people - myself included - talk about copyright when talking about this proposed extension, and yet if we are being exact it is only a ‘related right’ we are discussing - it is not actually copyright: which is reserved for those who wrote/composed the work, giving them a ‘moral’ right over it. So, whilst he is right to say ‘there has always been a moral case at the heart of copyright law’, what we are discussing is a related right, which has never had a moral case at its heart and has always been a purely economic ‘right’. This is why we have legislative instruments entitled The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, and not the Copyright Regulations 2003.

Mr Burnham wants to make it ‘moral’ because there are some performers who have - due to shitty recording contracts - not gotten some of the respect and benefits they might have deserved.

“It is a false argument to compare musicians with sportspeople or other professionals. No one is going to profit from someone winning the 100 metres decades on from that victory but, in a digital world, radio stations, mobile phone operators and consumers ensure that music continues to generate revenue far into the future.”

I go back to my example in a previous post/rant of Builders. I would think it is quite clear that a number of people continue to profit for house sales as years go by, so why don’t builders get a cut every time a property they built changes hands?

“Why should performers have to watch others profiting from their talent and creativity, especially at the time in their lives when many of them need it most?”

Again, like a broken record, I go back to my main point: Copyright is not a pension plan. Mr Burnham please refer me to which dictionary your consulting that makes you believe that it is.

“Let us be clear, this is not about boosting the wealth of well-known entertainers. [ But it will ] Behind those household names is an army of unsung heroes of the music business - the backing singers and session musicians, as well as the large number of featured artists who have never made a vast fortune, whose work continues to be played. Such artists deserve to benefit from others’ use of their products during their lifetime.” [ I don’t disagree. They have 50 years to do so. Sound like a great deal to me]

“Second, it should absolutely be the case that the person who creates a work has, within their lifetime, control over how their work is used. Should an artist who is a vegan, for example, have to put up with seeing their music used to promote fast food burgers? Or the music of an environmental campaigner being used to promote cars or airlines? I do not think so.”

Don’t sign away your rights to a record company or someone else then. Then you can control how it is used for the period your copyright lasts for. Also, surely an artist who is a vegan wont want their music used to promote fast food burgers even when they are dead.

“So there is a very clear moral case to extend copyright.”

Just repeating that there is, does not make it so Mr Burnham. But don’t let that stop you from repeating that it is a moral case again before the end of your article though.

“Yes, there are strong views on all sides of the debate, and yes it is a difficult balance to strike. Everyone will not get everything they want, but that is the nature of compromise. But in finding the right compromise I am clear that, while of course there are important economic issues to be considered, this is a moral question that cannot be ignored, as Mr McCreevy was right to acknowledge: one of doing the right thing by our performers and musicians.”

I’m still not sure where the compromise is in ignoring the economic evidence (what he means by ‘considering’ ) that shows harm to the consumer and to our culture. And why does this so-called compromise always end in the protection period being increased as opposed to decreased?

Full post as published by Information Overload on January 07, 2009 (boomark / email).