Since I posted my initial story on Pete Wishart MP’s sound recording copyright term extension Bill, quite a few things happened in my life (like moving house, and being devoid of internet access) which meant that I haven’t had a chance to post an update on the situation until now.
The Copyright in Sound Recordings and Performers’ Rights (Term Extension) Bill was objected to by an as-yet anonymous MP during its second reading on 7th March, which is Good News, and should finish it off.
The Bill’s draft text was published, which revealed that retrospective term extension for existing works – what we all wish to avoid for countless reasons – was included:
Copyright in Sound Recordings and Performers’ Rights (Term Extension) Bill
Part 2, Sections 4-54. Copyright in sound recordings: interpretation
(1) In the provisions of this Part relating to copyright—
(a) “existing”, in relation to a sound recording, means made before commencement, and
(b) “existing copyright work” means a sound recording in which copyright subsisted immediately before commencement.
(2) For the purposes of those provisions a sound recording of which the making extended over a period shall be taken to have been made when its making was completed.
5. Duration of copyright in sound recordings: application of new provisions
The new provisions relating to duration of copyright in sound recordings
apply—
(a) to copyright works made after commencement,
(b) to existing sound recordings which first qualify for copyright protection after commencement, and
(c) to existing copyright works, subject to section 4,
and nothing in this Act shall operate to revive copyright in an existing sound recording in which the copyright has at the date of commencement expired under the 1988 provisions or any earlier enactment relating to copyright.
The term chosen was 95 years.
The reading was rescheduled for 14th March (yesterday) due to time constraints, but as yet Hansard has not revealed what happened during that debate. If anyone knows, please email me or leave a comment.
I must thank my MP, Tom Harris, for acknowledging my letter.
There’s an elephant in the room, however. A similar move has been proposed at by the European Commission. Check the petitition page for more information, and do check out the excellent FT article on the subject by Professor James Boyle, co-director of Duke Law school’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain.