Intellectual Property Law

A number of blogs including the IPKat have reported on a statement by EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, arguing for the copyright period for sound recordings be extended from its current 50 years to 95 years.

The Commissioner doesn't appear to have put forward any positive reason for such an extension being a good thing; simply that if the duration of copyright for other type of works is more than 50 years, why shouldn't that be the case for copyright?

In the UK, MP Pete Wishart has put forward a Private Members Bill that, if passed into law, would give effect to McCreevy's suggestion.

The reasons for copyright durations being as they are, and whether those durations are too short or too long, is the subject of a more detailed post that we have time to write today.

The central issue in this debate is the balance between the monopoly given to a creator by copyright and the right of the public to benefit without restriction (e.g. educationally) from the copyright materials. When should the balance shift from one to the other, and should the timing of this shift be different depending on the type of work?

Is the purpose of copyright to enable the fledgling creator to benefit from her works at the time of creation (i.e. when they should be pulling their finger out and promoting themselves), or to allow her descendants to live the good life on the royalties? Yes, we've all heard the story of the guy whose book/picture/music wasn't recognised as great until oodles of years after his death, but those stories do appear to be the exception rather than the rule. In any event, and not to be morbid, by the time the critics discover these great works, the artists aren't exactly in a position to benefit from any royalty cheques.

The Open Rights Group is already gearing up for a campaign against copyright extension proposals such as that from the EU Commissioner and Pete Wishart. If you are against such proposals, follow the previous link to the ORG blog and various resources.

IMPACT aside: McCreevy is also one of the leading proponents of a unified European patent litigation system.