Government signals extension to copyright term

A disaster all round. Little money for performers other than those right at the top of the tree; less royalty income for songwriters and publishers due to fewer releases; almost certainly increased CD prices on back catalogue with the competition of independent labels; less choice for the consumer and hundreds of employees of companies who specialise in out-of-copyright recordings loosing their jobs. The major companies must be rubbing their collective hands with glee. They couldn't have done better out of it if they had written the law themselves.

Well done Andy Burnham, you have now sentenced the recorded music industry to death. With two of the largest distributors in the UK currently in administration and facing liquidation, hundred of music retailers and record labels facing the same fate, Mr Burnham has decided that it is the time that the copyright should be extended against the options of the independent experts, the silent majority of the industry and most importantly the customers. I have worked in this industry for the last 25 years and have seen many stupid decisions, but the campaign for the extension of the sound recording copyright to 70 years is the worst by a long run. We need to re-engage with our customers, especially with the current economic downturn. But it has now been confirmed to everyone that the industry can not stop ripping off the consumer and the musicians. The industry income is falling, although it is still historically high. We have not reduced unnecessary expenditure like almost every other industry, e.g. the expensive offices and expense accounts. Instead of investing in new acts and changing our business model, we spend it on politicians to change the law to increase income of the chosen few. This will have the effect of customers buying even fewer recordings, because they consider us to be unethical. The industry had larger falls in sales in the USA since introduction their copyright extension, than in the European market. Is there a connection? We have used the session musicians as a cover for the greed of a few already rich music executives and pop stars. The Musician Union involvement in this campaign has been shameful, because the leadership "believed" the spin that their members will get more money, while the opposite is true. The extension of the copyright will have opposite effect the stated aim of copyright, i.e. to reward innovation. According to record labels (especially the majors) accountants, this is a great idea because they will have an increased length of monopoly on the very small number of very profitable evergreen recordings. This will result in less new recordings being made because the accountants consider them to be risky and mostly unprofitable. Therefore less work for session musicians, who earn most money of their money from the session fees, while receiving a very small amount from the royalties. Most of the musicians who are affected in the next 10 years are now dead or will be dead by the time all of their recordings enter the public domain. Therefore the extension is rewarding their descendants. This extension will lead to a rise in average prices for 50 years plus recordings, this will annoy our customers even more. Although the PWC report stated that copyright does not affect prices. It obtained its price data from the BPI and not from an independent source i.e. Amazon or HMV. Although PWC stated that there is not enough data to be confidence of their conclusion, because they only used public domain recording made up to 1955, i.e. very few evergreen hits. Although we have seen reduction in retail prices for now public domain recordings of Elvis, Sinatra and other recordings of the 1950s. More importantly he extension will harm the indies, because most current indies were started in the last 20 years. The extension will increase the power of the majors, because the copyright is being used as a barrier to entry. Increasing their power with the retailer to stock their product and place them significant positions, to disadvantage of the indies. The industry will enter an increasing descending spiral, where the indies can not compete against the majors. The indies will not have the money to finance recording new music, the majors only release low risk recordings and old evergreen recordings. The consumers will buy less recordings, until the no one can afford to continue trading. The industry will be correctly described cultural vandals. Many important but uneconomic recordings will rot away and will be lost forever. These are currently being released by very small independent public domain labels, the recordings are considered to uneconomic or even forgotten by the original copyright holder.

congratulations to John Emerson .He has hit the nail on the head. Those great 50 year old recordings by little known artists will no longer be available to the record buying public. The major record companies who know very little about them will leave then rotting in the vaults . Stop any competition at all costs.The losers are the independent record companies who love and cherish this music and of course the customers.If you cant beat em destroy them

well done Andy, fingers crossed for the 70!!!

I'm a lecturer in music studying performance. I have seen disastrous consequences in America of copyright extension, because it was backdated. A huge part of America's recorded heritage -- most of it -- is lost or unavailable as a result. If it's backdated here even more will be lost. Many originating companies no longer exist or are in the hands of asset strippers. How will we hear all those great recordings then? EMI have shown little of not interest in making them available on CD, so where will we go. Do we all have to buy 78 players and hunt for the records? This is just plain wrong!

my lp and 78 rpm collection will not be generally available anymore for younger people. Cliff Richard will be able to buy an other mansion. A session guitarist will get 5 or 6 pounds extra a year. It's all about priorities

The move is a major victory for the music industry Right.... Dear musicians, If you want me to keep buying your recordings after this disgusting act of stupidity and breach of trust perpetrated 'on your behalf', you'd better start CC licensing them and selling them directly.

This decision is wrong-headed. Session musicians will see little from this extension. The winners will be the big producers and the losers will be the rest of us. Uneconomic, but culturally significant, recordings will rot away in libraries and archives that will not be able to preserve them before they disintegrate. Why have they ignored Gowers?