The EC have made a press release with vague talk of aiding 70 year olds whose only income is royalties from musical work they did before their 20th birthday:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1156&forma...
Some more info is in Karsten Gerloff's blog: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/gerloff/blog/ec_has_a_copyright_day_term_extensio...
I wasn't able to tell whether this is specific to music, or whether it would apply to all copyrights. Either way, we'll have to develop our arguments about how copyright is killing culture, hindering education, and interfering with the public's legitimate use of computers and networks.
Even though the campaigns against copyright extension in the USA were unsuccessful, at least they should have produced a body of discussion that we can now draw from in the coming debate here.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
The EC have made a press release with vague talk of aiding 70 year olds whose only income is royalties from musical work they did before their 20th birthday:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1156&forma...
By curiosity, I just checked the law for the performer in Belgium (loi du 30 juin 1994, Chap II, Des Droits Voisins, Art. 38) : "Les droits de l'artiste interprète ou exécutant expirent 50 ans après la date de la prestation." This means that the patrimonial rights on their "performance" is protected 50 years after the first public performance. I haven't see any direct relationship between the performance and the work performed (but maybe I overlooked something). (note : protection for the author is 70 years after his death in Belgium but common in EU)
Now the 95 years after the first public performance just seems reasonable but I think it's not. Usually (by default like that in Belgium law) the performer gave the rights to the producer... There is also a specific case where the performer receive money for non-cultural activities but the amount of money is calculated by the producer ;-) I think if they really want to help the performer they should already concentrate on that part and not on extending period that won't directly benefit to the performer.
Maybe we should try to find the historical reason for those neighbouring rights and see the exact logic (if there is any) for the period. At least to clearly understand the relationship between the performed work and the rights on the work itself out of the performance.
By the way, this is a good catch...
adulau
* Ciaran O'Riordan:
The EC have made a press release with vague talk of aiding 70 year olds whose only income is royalties from musical work they did before their 20th birthday:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1156&forma...
Some more info is in Karsten Gerloff's blog: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/gerloff/blog/ec_has_a_copyright_day_term_extensio...
I wasn't able to tell whether this is specific to music, or whether it would apply to all copyrights.
It's specific to performances and reproduction, I think, not copyright on original works.
A litmus test would be to press for something like "50 years after performance, or 25 years after death of the performer, whichever comes last". If they're really concerned with the artists' wellbeing, this should be totally acceptable.