Date:         Tue, 16 May 2006 09:08:02 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Marcos Sueiro <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Letter on British Copyright Term Extension
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
          <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

What libraries (and those on our side of the copyright issue) need is their 
own counterpart to Cliff Richard: a famous musician willing to speak out 
against these laws. Not unlike that group of Canadian musicians mentioned 
here not long ago.

Marcos

--On Sunday, May 14, 2006 4:02 PM -0400 Tim Brooks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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



Marcos
http://tinyurl.com/kqdbk