Message from James Purnell

James Purnell has replied, via my MP, to my message. I hope it's ok to
reproduce his intellectual property here without his permission. He
writes:

"The music industry is keen to see an extension of the copyright term for
sound recordings, which is currently set at 50 years. Many UK recordings
dating from the early 1960s - such as those by The Beatles and the Rolling
Stones - are still selling well, and companies like EMI are concerned
about their income streams once these recordings start to go out of
copyright from 2010.

"Despite the report in the press we have not in fact made a decision on
whether the copyright term on music should be extended. We are, however,
discussing this issue with other Departments, and have now reached
agreement to commission an independent study to assess the pros and cons
of change. Any change in copyright term would be a matter for EU law, so
all relevant Government interests, as well as our EU partners, would need
to be convinced that change is justified and in the best interests of UK
stakeholders generally."

I find it encouraging that he states that a decision hasn't yet been made.
I was disappointed that he didn't deny that any copyright extension would
be retroactive (it seemed to me like the kind of detail that journalists
could get wrong). I hadn't thought of it as an EU issue, but I suppose
that the EU does influence British copyright law.

I wonder how much the major labels stand to gain from retroactive
copyright extension. Wouldn't labels receive the same income from '60s
recordings, apart from those with public domain lyrics, whether or not the
recordings' copyrights are extended? I find Cliff Richard's position on
retroactive copyright extension (
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/rock_n_roll_swindle.shtml ) easier to
understand.

On a different note, might http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/ help about
corrupt discs where Trading Standards didn't?

Tim Ivorson





verified virus free by Usermail.com