Members of Britain’s new Featured Artists Coalition want the European Commission to help them recover their rights to their own music.
As things stand, an EC “use it or lose it” copyright clause means recordings revert to performers if the producer or label no longer wants to market the recording — but only after half a century.
However, FAC members, including a2f2a.com co-founder Billy Bragg, today met with senior civil servants at the Intellectual Property Office in London in a bid to get the cause whittled down to 35 years
“We also discussed how it might be possible to restrict copyright to short term licences rather than assignment for life of copyright,” says Bragg in a comment post on a2f2a.com.
During the meeting “A senior civil servant stated that the focus of copyright was moving from permission to remuneration,” he says, going on:
“Talking afterwards we all felt that was very significant, a tacit acceptance of the FAC argument that non-commercial behaviour needs to be lifted out of copyright law.”
Now Bragg is looking for support to break the cycle from file sharers, “particularly in the big fight that we will have next month when the government publish their Digital Britain Bill,” he says.
Copyright is the “stick that they use to beat you and I believe that, as it is being debated at the highest level over the next six months, as governments ask for submissions on the subject, we can work together to disarm the industry to such an extent that they can no longer beat you up over non-commercial use,” he says.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“…as governments ask for submissions on the subject, we can work together to disarm the industry to such an extent that they can no longer beat you up over non-commercial use…”
While I love the sound of that, I’m still expecting those with the largest pockets to have anything proposed in those submissions ridiculed and silently discarded as “inappropriate”, similarly to what happens over here in Canada.
I also have a “hunch” that whatever gets published as the Digital Britain bill will be trashed soon after, for whatever our buddies in ACTA want.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
The way to push this through is to involve the PPUK. Nothing would put the wind up the struggling Brown government more than a direct political threat. The idea of thousands of filesharers defecting to the Pirate Party, as is happening elsewhere in Europe, might be enough to get this proposal given the serious consideration it deserves.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Those who freely exchange art and copies thereof contrary to others’ privilege are just one demographic segment of all artists and fans expecting to enjoy their liberty in their own lifetime (this year rather than this century).
All human exchange is commerce. All human communication is artistic expression.
It is not that commerce belongs to corporations, but that liberty belongs to individuals – the liberty to exchange their expression.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
” However, FAC members, including a2f2a.com co-founder Billy Bragg, today met with senior civil servants at the Intellectual Property Office in London in a bid to get the cause whittled down to 35 years ”
I can support that, it’s a start. It has to start small. But I WON’T support it if in order to get it, they have to sacrifice the fans by backing a 3 strikes type bill. That’s ‘one step forward two steps back’.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Dredds,
No one is asking you to support three strikes.
Lets quit listing all the things we don’t agree on and try to find the things that we do agree on.
Your support for the 35 year option is very welcome, particularly because you recognise that, although it is a bloody long time, it’s a start. That’s what we’re trying to do here. Make a start on breaking down the current copyright regime.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
” Lets quit listing all the things we don’t agree on and try to find the things that we do agree on. ”
I would love to do that.It’s just that I see a problem, and I hope I am wrong, and I welcome being corrected if I AM wrong.
I am getting the impression from previous threads that in order for you to GET that 35 years you want ( and I support ) you have to GIVE your support for throttling or 3 strikes. Trade fans fir favors. If that is NOT the case, then correct me.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
^^
Sounds like a reasonable interrogation to me.
We have already voiced our supreme opposition to BOTH draconian copyright conditions and provider interference proposals. It wouldn’t be sane to propose some peculiar “trade off”, where getting rid of one requires acceptance of the other. (That would be like your upstairs neighbour offering you the “deal” that if he can continue to play his music at 3:00am, he’ll stop letting his dog shit on your doormat.)
Dredd’s got a very valid concern.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“Dredd’s got a very valid concern.”
Thank you. The worst part of that, if true, is that the people whose rights will get trampled have NO VOICE and NO REPRESENTATION in these proceedings, sort of like a mini ACTA conference. As I said, If I have the wrong impression, please correct me, as this is the entire root of my frustrations here.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Dredd, DA,
There will be no trade off on these two issues.
Instead of worrying about these possibilties, why don’t you delegate someone to come and sit at the table and take part in these negotiations? That is the way to make sure that the people who are the focus of these laws do get a voice, do get representation.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
” There will be no trade off on these two issues. ”
I’m happier now.
” Instead of worrying about these possibilties, why don’t you delegate someone to come and sit at the table and take part in these negotiations? That is the way to make sure that the people who are the focus of these laws do get a voice, do get representation. ”
Working on it ( looks toward Jon )
November 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“There will be no trade off on these two issues.”
I just need the clarity on this one.
Does this mean the FAC is willing to reverse their position on provider interference? Or are you simply going in to talk about the copyright issue, and avoid both touching on the 3-strikes topic and discussing amongst its members any possibility of rescinding the FAC’s previous support?
“…why don’t you delegate someone to come and sit at the table…”
Believe me! If money was something I didn’t have to kill for right now, I’d be insisting on being one of the people on that plane!!
One thing you have to remember, Billy, is that many in the fan base you’d like to see represented are not in England and aren’t in the financial position to just buy a plane ticket. And, there’s lots of others who’d like to see more of these types of discussions before “coming out” in front of any government as a “file sharer”.
You belong to a actual organized coalition, with money between you and resources at your feet. In contrast, “we” are just individuals, mostly “working slobs”, without protection, and the ones most persecuted by the very process you’re engaging.
It’s only been a few weeks since this site went up and we all started talking and we’re being told the window’s already closing on the first opportunity to be heard. Sure! Everyone would like to see things change TOMORROW. But, afford us the same understanding of our position as we have openly extended to you.
You got impatient because you couldn’t get quick answers to some very broad questions, yet you seem to be avoiding the direct answer to a much simpler question (above), about a very central matter in this relationship. We absolutely MUST know if the relationship has progressed on that front, or there’s not much point in going in expecting to have a voice. We BOTH have grounds we’re trying to regain, not just in the artist-fan issue, but in our own worlds as well. And, currently, you’re still basically the only “artist voice” engaging us about this.
Collectively, the P2P community is considerably more vulnerable than any artist, and there’s a lot more at stake on that front besides “music”.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:13 am
DA,
I will be pressing the FAC to clearly state that we do not believe that there can be any technical solution to the problems we face because of file-sharing. Our campaign ‘where money is made, artists must be paid’ implicitly supports the right of file-sharers not to be prosecuted. The industry will not buy our support for three strikes in exchange for 35 years use it or lose it.
How have you got hold of the idea that the window is closing? They haven’t even had the second reading of the bill yet.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I suppose you have to press them for what you can get, but personally I think it should be five years use it or lose it. Think about it, some band gets a bad record deal, and their songs don’t get any promo or release for years. Let’s say they are 20 years old, at 35 years they don’t get the rights back till they are 55! At that point if they haven’t all given up music for day jobs they get to go on a geezer revival tour. At 5 years, the members are only 25, probably still playing and can make good use of their music. Considering just how easy it is to release something digitally there is no excuse for a rights holder to hold on to someones music and not release it.