LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2006

ARSCLIST May 2006

Subject:

Letter on British Copyright Term Extension

From:

Tim Brooks <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 14 May 2006 16:02:58 EDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

The British government is being heavily lobbied by the recording companies to
extend the copyright term for recordings there from the present 50 years to
as much as 95, and make it retroactive. That would pretty much shut down the
UK's historic reissue industry. There have been a number of pro and con
letters in the British papers. Cliff Richard (the UK's Sonny Bono?) has been making
the rounds on behalf of the record companies urging extension, so he can keep
getting royalties from his 1950s hits.

ARSC member David Patmore was asked by CHARM, a consortium of English
universities interested in record preservation and study, to write a position paper
on the subject for submission to Andrew Gowers, who is studying the matter for
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After supplying David with some information,
I decided to write a letter myself and, to my surprise, the Times of London
printed it last Thursday(abridged), with mention of ARSC. See the link below.
Following that is the full letter as submitted.

I encourage others on the list to get involved before this is decided! Here
are some addresses David supplied me:
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask] (The Financial Times)
[log in to unmask]
letters@ independent.co.uk
They all ask for any correspondence to be accompanied by the sender's name,
postal address and daytime telephone number.
Tim Brooks
Copyright & Fair Use Committee
(my thanks to committee member Dick Spottswood for his input.)

In a message dated 5/11/2006 5:09:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Hi Tim - the letter is in today's issue of The Times as a leading item on the
letters page, p. 18.
It reads very powerfully - the only cut has been the names of the record
companies.
It's also on the web at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2174469,00.html
I have two copies of this issue and will bring them to Seattle - look forward
to seeing you there.
Very best wishes and many thanks again for your greatly valued support -
David.
To the Editor:

As Britons consider the appeals of the large record companies to lengthen the
copyright term for recordings from its present 50 years to as much as 95, I
hope they will consider–and learn about–the disastrous cultural consequences
such long periods of exclusivity have had in the United States. This matter is
currently under review by Mr. Andrew Gowers for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.

According to a recent study rights holders in the U.S. have made available
only 10% of the most historic pre-1955 recordings they control, either
themselves or by licensing to others. Moreover this figure is heavily weighted toward
more recent periods (the 1940s and 1950s); as one goes further back the
percentage dwindles to almost nothing. What the record companies really want is the
small fraction of older recordings that can still make them lots of money.
The rest they bury.

Ethnic and minority musics are particularly hard hit, since they are not big
money makers. According to the study most of the historic blues recordings
available in the U.S. came from overseas labels (including the U.K.) or illegal
issues, not the "rights holders." While doing research for a book on the
earliest (pre-1920) black recording artists I was startled to learn than most of
those recordings are still controlled by modern corporations, who have made
available fewer than one percent of them. The book, appropriately, is called
Lost Sounds.

Britain is home to some of the best and most respected historic reissue
labels in the world, including Document and Pearl. They are where most Americans
hear their own recorded history, since it is buried by copyright law in their
own country. This industry will be shut down, or severely curtailed, if the
major labels get their way, and don't count on the majors to take their place.

Sir Cliff Richard says it is "only fair" that he should reap royalties from
his earliest recordings for a century or so. But most artists, especially
early ones, had to sign away their rights just to get recorded. Long copyright
terms mainly benefit recording companies, not long-ago artists or their heirs.
And ultimately the ability to live off the past will make British companies
less, not more, competitive. Why take the risks needed to develop the next
Beatles when you can milk the old ones indefinitely?

Copyright is supposed to balance the rights of creators with those of history
and society. In recent years there has been a backlash against overly long
copyright terms in the U.S., as the public realizes it was sold out for the
special interests. I hope the British public does not allow itself to be
similarly swindled.

Tim Brooks
Chair, Copyright & Fair Use Committee, Association for Recorded Sound
Collections
Greenwich, CT USA

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager