Mike Butcher

[Copyright conference coverage]: Peter Jenner, of Sincere Management, one time manager of Pink Floyd and now Billy Bragg, said we all “need” copyright. But there are differences between the creator and the investor. “The creator is often used as the fig leaf for the investors greed.” Very few artists get royalties – “I’m unhappy with the way the total amount of money that comes into the industry, a small amount is spent of the creative writers and musicians – most is spent on marketing, mindless meetings etc. That’s why remuneration with PPL is good, because performers get paid irrespective of what was spent. The DMCA only applies to non-interactive music, so all the interesting stuuf the Net can do is not covered. So the record companies are anxious to hold onto their rights, and be very inflexible. I don’t believe in the physical ownership of music, I believe in the celestial jukebox. iTunes sales have levelled out because the price is too high. At least in Europe we understand the concept of collecting money for actual performance. We need honest and transparent collection societies.

[Copyright conference coverage] Fran Nevrkla, chairman & CEO, PPL, said the comfort of academia is publically funded – and debate over copyright comes down to income for performers (PPL represents 30,000 members). “One day I’ll read out a letter from one of our performers – not George Michael – at December that 1,000 quid cheque meant my family can have a Christmas.”

[Copyright conference coverage]: David Stopps, council member, FML and MMF, said if copyright expired when a singer was in 67 (50 years after their hit record when they were 17) then she would be more reliant on the state in her dotage, and unable to draw monies from her works.

[Copyright conference coverage] Rufus Pollock, director & co-founder of The Open Knowledge Foundation said extending copryight does not bring Elvis from the grave to create more works. “When we increase the amount you pay for older works, you reduce the amount spent on new ones.” Secondly, extension of copyright does not act as an incentive for archive holders to release it for new artists to use and re-use.

[Copyright conference coverage] Cory Doctorow, European Affairs Co-ordinator, Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the lessen from history is that “technology giveth and technology taketh away” and to succeed in this new world you need to work with technology. “I now sell more books even though my book is released online on the same day it comes out in print… Every time someone comes up against DRM, they defect, so we should find mechanisms that are endemic to the Internet.” Doctorow also made the point that 90% of artists signed to music labels earn less than $600 a year (although you made need to verify that!).

[Copyright conference coverage] Peter Jamieson: He painted a picture ten years from now where there a many different copies and versions of old songs circulating, of varying quality. Why? Because companies that can’t own their catalogues can’t afford to chase copyright infringement.

[Copyright conference coverage] Katie Melua apparently wonders why she is valued less because she is a singer songwriter than she would be if she was a writer, according to Peter Jamieson, executive chairman, BPI.

[Copyright conference coverage] Peter Jamieson, executive chairman, BPI. “I have no desire to ape the US, but we cannot afford to lessen our music rights at all. The US is not out on its own with huge copyright protection. Europe just lags behind the trend, and has the lowest amount of time for protection.”

[Copyright conference coverage]: Martin Kretschmer Professor, Bournemouth University: “I suggest we use extended collective licensing – can’t call it a compulsory license, but on the ground you say after a short period of exclusive rights the work gets an ‘innovation license’ and royalties are negotiated thereafter. The people who earn a good living from copyright are a handful of artists, usually at the end of their career.”

[Copyright conference coverage]: Martin Kretschmer Professor, Bournemouth University, made the point that Ibuprofen and Nurofen are the same essential product but Nurofen costs ten times as much. Why because the copyright on Ibuprofen ran out in the 80s and Boots decided to market Nurofen…

“If you want high prices and less innovation then extend the terms of copyright.”