Specific Issues
Current term of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights
Background: The Review will fulfil the Government’s commitment to examine whether the current 50 year term of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights in sound recordings is appropriate, in the light of its extension to 95 years in a number of other jurisdictions.
(a) What are your views on this issue?
(b) Is there evidence to show the impact that a change in term would have on investment, creativity, and consumer interests?
(c) Are you aware of the impact that different lengths of term have had on investment, creativity, and consumer interests in other countries?
(d) Are there alternative arrangements that could accompany an extension of term (e.g. licence of right for any extended term)?
(e) If term were to be extended, should it be extended retrospectively (for existing works) or solely for new creations?
March 14th, 2006 at 20:04
(a) As a private individual/music buyer, I’m against any copyright term extension, retrospective or not. The “artists still alive” argument is irrelevant to me – if they’re still alive then why can’t they do something else to benefit the economy? (Say, create another work and thus earn a fresh term of copyright?) If they’ve not made money after 50 years, when are they going to? Why does a creative person deserve to be paid for work done 50 years ago, but my employer pays me for work done in the past month at most? Why shouldn’t creative people invest in a pension plan like the rest of us? Recording artists knew or should have known that they got 50 years – the record industry certainly should have. The opinion of many (viz and ) is that the record industry is panicking because its monopoly rights on cash cows are about to expire. Other companies, including those set up by artists, could issue the out-of-copyright sound recordings as long as they pay the music publishing royalties to the song writers. If we agree to an extension of 50 years, what will happen when those 50 years are up – another push to extend copyrights retrospectively? Copyright is an incentive to create works – by definition you can’t incentivise the creation of the already created, nor incentivise dead people to create more works. Retrospective extension amounts to theft from the public domain. How much incentive do we need anyway? (See (b)). Would having only 20 year copyrights cause MORE creativity, because you can’t just create one popular work and then retire on the proceeds? All extensions stop us building on the past – but the past in turn built on its past (Elvis on Black American music, the Beatles on Elvis…)
(b) There’s no evidence the 50 year term is having any limiting effect on creativity – a BPI press release notes 62.4 million British artist albums sold in the UK in 2005 equating to 49.4% market share, suggests overall UK (non-compilation) album market is ~125 million. RIAA 2004 end of year stats show ~767 million albums shipped in the US (BPI full stats are subscription only, RIAA ones may include compilations). Simple “albums sold per head of population” calculations (taking UK population as 125m, US as 298m, both from respective Wikipedia articles) give UK 2.1 albums/head, US 2.5. US copyright term is 95 years as opposed to 50. But having to pay monopoly prices for a Beatles album certainly is affecting consumer interests.
(d) Could do “compulsory licence” for copyrights extension – exponential doubling has been suggested (£1 for first year, £2 for second, £4 for third – makes for ~ £35000 billion for 45 year extension!) – an advantage is that registration could easily be added in, so partially solving “orpahn work” problem. I personally disagree with this and believe that copyrights should not be extended at all.
(e) The term should not be extended at all (and should be cut if possible – see (a)). If an extension is absolutely necessary it should be for new works only because of the prior knowledge the parties involved had of the 50 year copyright term when they created their works. However, in the unlikely event that it can be agreed (Berne Convention prohibits reducing copyright terms) then a cut in terms should likewise be for new works only.
March 17th, 2006 at 21:58
(a) As a performer (I am a member of an unsigned band), I do not believe that the copyright term needs to be extended. I would hope that in fifty years I would be able to produce more than one item worth buying to provide me with income. If not, that would be my own shortcoming, and perhaps I should have chosen a different profession.
(b) I have no evidence, but I believe the nature of such a change, should it only be applied to new works, would be such that we would only discover in ninety years how successful such a change would be.
(d) Again, I do not believe the term should be extended.
(e) It should be extended soley for new creations. To extend copyright terms at all is a slippery slope, and merely allows locking away more of our collective past in ways such that we cannot access it or build upon it meaningfully.
April 16th, 2006 at 17:16
I think it is true that the European recording copyright extension matter will be decided on factual rather than anecdotal grounds. To that end I refer you to my statistical study, conducted recently for the U.S. Library of Congress and the National Recording Preservation Board, on the state of historic record reissues in the U.S. under the current U.S. copyright regime. It is available in paper copy or as a free download from the website of the Council on Library and Information Resources (http://www.clir.org/). A detailed article expanding on this study is “How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: A New Study,” by Tim Brooks, in ARSC Journal Vol. 36 No. 2 (Fall 2005).
The bottom line is that only 14% of pre-1965 “historic” recordings are currently available from U.S. rights holders, most of them are from post-World War II periods. The figure drops to about 10% for the 1920s and 1930s, and approaches zero for periods prior to 1920. Ethnic recordings are particularly underserved.
It is also notable that there are many calls for the liberalization of the harsh regime in the U.S., which the European proposals, as I understand them, would replicate. See the more than 600 comments submitted to the Copyright Office in its investigation of the problem of “orphan works”, at http://www.copyright.gov/orphan. Among others, two major artist organizations, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) called for a compulsory license that would allow non-rights holders to legally reissue recordings which the rights holders do not, on payment of a government-set fee. Under long copyright terms the problem of “suppressed recordings” is very real.
The net effect of a 95-year recording term in the U.S. has been:
1. Major independent labels and cultural organizations, which must abide by the law, avoid or reduce significantly their reissues of historic recordings because of the burden of licensing or the threat of lawsuits. Whatever rights holders may claim when seeking extended privileges, the reality is that important recordings are simply suppressed, with no benefit to them or to the public.
2. Demand for these recordings is so insistent that an extensive underground market has sprung up, which the rights-holders are well aware of. These CDs are available on the internet and elsewhere, effectively in defiance of the law. In the aforementioned study while only 14% of pre-1965 historic recordings are available from rights holders, another 22% are available from non-rights holders. Basically, laws widely perceived as unfair invite defiance, undermining the whole rule of law. Is this what the EU wishes? (This is not unlike the situation in England in the 17th century when public outrage at the use by the Crown of exclusive patents to constrain free speech led to the passage of the first copyright law, The Statute of Anne, in 1710. Have we forgotten our own history?)
Americans are finally waking up to the considerable problems created by the long copyright terms that were pushed through Congress in the 1970s (and extended in the 1990s). I would hope that the European Union would learn from these mistakes, rather than replicate them.
April 17th, 2006 at 21:40
I am a private collector of old recordings and believe that there should be no change to the copyright laws as this would prevent the re-issue of many old and hsitorically important recordings that the record companies are not interested in re-issuing or are unable to re-issue.
April 18th, 2006 at 21:07
All arguments for extending copyright from 50 to 95 years and the extraordinary proposed retroactive change to the law which is dangerous and unsound because retroactivity of one law in isolation is totally inconsistent with any rational legal structure, have been based not on intellectual merit but on the supposed but unproven future profitablity estimated of large media corporations. The artists and performers,as well as the listeners who make the whole meaningful, are completely left out of any arguments. Historically apart from rare exceptions composers and performers have not been well served by copyright laws. Large companies have benefited greatly however. Early century performers were normally paid less than five dollars (from 1900 to the 1945 era) for recordings, without possibility of royalties. In case of radio broadcasts they had no payment and no royalties. Sometimes composers were paid royalties. However nearly all accrued benefits went to large corporations. The totally cynical argument from the Blair government Minister concerned, that unless the Sony Corporation and etc have copyright control for 95 years both forward (and backward for existing works), the music entertainment industry will collapse and the artists concerned will die out, is clearly unjustified to anyone with the slightest reasoning capacity. Not only that but much of artistic invention over centuries has arisen from artists living under strained conditions, (like most listeners). A more logical argument is that prosperous and contented artists will not produce good works, because their environment does not strain their emotions, and also because they have no need to produce. It is clear that the argument has never been about artists and intellectual property but merely confined to maximising profits of large corporations and causing the demise of small producers (as has been done in agriculture, meat packaging, cereal production, dairy farming and numerous other areas in Canada).
This so-called Gower Enquiry is a ludicrously transparent power grab by large corporations backed by goverments that wish to normalise retroactive law acceptance and also give control of audio reproduction, including some recorded political speeches and old news reports, over to governments and their friendly large businesses, maintaining them in power. By their almost total silence on these frightening developments in information control the senior British legal world members have let down all British traditions and should hang their heads in shame.
April 19th, 2006 at 18:44
Although the United States grants a 95-year copyright to sound recordings being produced now, it should be pointed out that even here there is no federal copyright in sound recordings that are currently in the public domain in the UK. Rather, the right to duplicate such recordings is left up to the individual states, and no U.S. state currently recognizes a 95-year term for *early* sound recordings. Instead, state laws vary: some states, by not specifying any term, effectively recognize a perpetual copyright (due to be superseded by federal law in 2067), while others recognize other terms (56 years in Colorado [Revised Statutes Sec. 18-4-6]). By extending the term of copyright in sound recordings retroactively to ninety-five years for *early* sound recordings, the UK would not be harmonizing its term with that of the United States, which does not specify any federal term of coverage for this class of material. Indeed, the term in Colorado is far closer to the current term in the UK than to the new term being considered. There is, accordingly, no established “test case” to which the UK can look to evaluate the effect of a specific 95-year term on *early* sound recordings, because this particular cut-off point is not actually in effect in the US. However, the lamentable state of historic reissues in the US (see Tim Brooks’ comments) does show that a failure to establish a clear and consistent public domain for this material has had a deleterious effect on its availability and, in turn, on the ability of modern listeners and cultural critics to hear and respond to it.
April 20th, 2006 at 22:24
THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT TO 95 YEARS
I write as a music hall and historic recordings expert re the proposal to extend mechanical copyright to 95 years.
THE PROBLEM
If the proposed 95 years copyright extension becomes law, and is applied retrospectively, the only people allowed to reissue recordings made in the past 95 years, ie after 1910, will be the companies who recorded them, or who took over those companies. Due to takeovers these “parent companies” are now Polygram and EMI. What chance do we have that they will ever reissue music hall recordings?
WHAT CHANCE MUSIC HALL REISSUES BY THE MAJORS?
Polygram and EMI – Their collective track record of reissuing archive music hall recordings in the last 30 years is between nil and negligible. Reissue of these historical historically important recordings (and I believe of opera, jazz, blues etc) has not fared well in these hands. What are the chances of them doing better in the future?
POLYGRAM’S TRACK RECORD
No music hall reissues for over 30 years. Polygram (who took over Decca, who had taken over Edison Bell & Winner) in fact hold NONE of the masters, or indeed copies of any of their pre-1948 recordings AT ALL – NOT ONE. Of the nigh-on 4,000 Edison Bell Winners they technically control – You guessed it! They have NONE! This is a result of thinking so little of what they did have that they sold it off to private collectors years ago. This action alone shows their attitude to reissuing archive / vintage recordings – their recordings now only exist in the hands of private collectors! They DO NOT HAVE any of the music hall recordings THEY ALONE, under any new retrospective extension, would be able to reissue or suppress for 95 years from their recording date. Fortunately, most Winners and Deccas exist in various private collections – but these collectors are not young (I include myself!) and, without reissue, the future fate of these recordings is precarious.
EMI’S TRACK RECORD
Since they closed their World Records section over 30 years ago, there have been no music hall reissues from EMI. EMI do have an archive of many of their HMV 78 issues, but certainly not all of them. They have not kept any/ most of their own cheap label Zonophones, on which most of their music hall recordings were issued. Myself and others have tried for decades to encourage them to reissue what they have, or to make it available for reissue by others, all to no avail. And here’s another thing! Their archive is even more remarkable in its incompleteness! When they merged with Columbia (&Regal) in 1931 they continued to consider them the enemy, & chose not to hold any archive of Columbia Records, even though they were now their property. Fred Gaisberg was amazed to find they didn’t have the Columbia 78s of the great classical pianist Busoni in the EMI archive – and that was post-merger! Opera collectors in charge of the ongoing Historic Masters reissue project have found only one acoustic Columbia 78 in the EMI Archive so far. Pre-merger, Columbia had issued over 5,000 records, Regal had issued about 4,000. Through Lindstrom, they technically own 1,600 Jumbos and a few thousand more Bekas, Scalas and Coliseums, not one of which is held at EMI. These should all be in EMI’s Archive, but they have NONE OF THEM! Again, THEY ALONE, under any new retrospective extension, would be able to reissue or suppress these for 95 years from their recording date.
INDEPENDENT REISSUERS
Most original music hall recordings only exist today due to the efforts of dedicated enthusiasts – enthusiasts not interested in financial considerations, but in the preservation of these artefacts of a valuable part of our cultural heritage. Myself & a number of other enthusiasts have spent the best part of our lives running to ground early recordings, in my case of music hall artistes, in others of opera, classical, jazz, blues, folk, country, speech, etc. The vast majority of these recordings (probably 75%) are not held in any company archive, existing only in private collections built up over forty-odd years devoted to saving them from the junk-heap. Some collectors choose to keep their finds to themselves. Others wish to spread knowledge and appreciation of this historical subject by reissuing them. If it were not for the activities of independent reissuers, whose CD reissues mostly sell in quantities less than 100, music hall reissues just would not exist.
WHY IS REISSUING ON CD IMPORTANT?
We are in an ongoing project to piece together what remains of this country’s early recording history. Part of the process is to reissue these old recordings, thus making them accessible to more people, spreading interest in the project, and encouraging collectors to participate.
From 1898 to 1945 thousands of music hall recordings were issued on fragile 78s, & even more fragile cylinders. Many of these recordings now exist in small quantities, some in a sole copy, while some have not survived at all. There are huge gaps. The point of reissuing these 78s and cylinders on CD is to increase the recording’s chance of future survival – and to enable current and future appreciation and study of these great music hall performers, and of their repertoire, much of which is of great social significance. Some recordings have been reissued from the sole copies remaining anywhere. The CD reissues bring together / focus the results of various private collectors’ life-long efforts to save vintage recordings from the scrap-heap. Prompted by these CD reissues, other collectors are coming forward with records from their own collections, in many cases unique copies – these now exist in multiple copies on CD reissues, no longer at risk of being entirely lost to damage and decay. This means that music hall enthusiasts and students of this and future generations will, through these CD reissues, be able to hear extremely rare music hall recordings which will otherwise be lost. This is not a “stuffy museum” project. Music hall recordings are great entertainment, a fact not generally appreciated due to a dearth of media coverage. The historical importance of early sound recordings has yet to be fully appreciated. The aim is to preserve these rare recordings in a more permanent format, the professional restoration and other costs being paid for by sales of the CDs.
WHO WILL REISSUE THIS MATERIAL?
We are not talking Elvis Presley and The Beatles here. These recordings have little or no monetary value as reissue projects. They have value as important artefacts to people who care about our cultural heritage. My reissue of six 1948 ITMA shows no longer held by the BBC sold 26 copies each and did not cover costs – that is not the point. They are now available to enthusiasts, and saved for future students, who might want to hear what made it such a landmark in entertainment history, and for historians seeking fascinating contemporary comment on life in post–war Britain.
LICENSING
Any additional cost of paying licence fees for these recordings would not be feasible. Most of the CD reissues have covered production costs at best. Some have not yet done so. Sales if anything are decreasing. The added burden of licensing would almost certainly end the project, depending on the fee. In the past we have asked EMI if we could licence some of the rarer masters they do have, of records that have never turned up in the collecting field, but the fee has been prohibitive. It also seems wrong to us that a licence fee could be demanded for an item – and there are thousands of them – that the company do not have copies of, through their conscious decision not to keep copies.
NON-SUFFERING ARTISTE’S RELATIVES
One of the arguments put forward in favour of the 95-year extension is that artistes and their families suffer from a shorter copyright period. This is quite the opposite with historic music hall recordings. Relatives of music hall artistes Dorothy Ward, Phil Ray, Will Johnson and Daisy Dormer have expressed their delight at hearing their forebear’s recordings through my reissue of them on CD. The companies who recorded these Regals and Winners originally (ie now EMI and Polygram) have no archive copies of these recordings. The same relatives are eagerly awaiting my reissue of their later (1915) recordings planned for next year. A 95-year retrospective ruling would scupper that – who would be the loser? They would not have heard the voices of their forebears if it were not for the efforts of dedicated enthusiasts like myself.
My Western Brothers CD has (so far) delighted 5 of their relatives who have searched for their recordings in vain. Some of the Western Brothers’ Columbia records may well exist in the EMI archive, but EMI have made no attempt to reissue them, and show no interest in ever doing so. Under the new retrospective 95-year extension, those relatives would have had to wait till 2029 to hear the first of the Western’s Columbias, and till 2036 to hear the last, unless EMI or Decca had a change of heart in the meantime. Don’t hold your breath for that!
CAN WE AFFORD TO WAIT?
This is work which must be done now – WHILE WE STILL CAN – for future generations as well as ourselves. Music hall, although currently rather unfashionable, is an important part of our culture – future students will hopefully have more consideration of its cultural worth. It is important to keep what interest there still is in the great music hall artistes of Britain’s past alive for as long as possible. The collecting world is not made up of young people, and when we go our 78 collections may well disappear with us. There have been too many horror stories of lost collections. What would be the result of a 95-year effective freeze on reissues of music hall? It would mean, as an example, that 1935 recordings will not be reissuable until 2030 – I’m sure we all hope we’ll still be around then, but we’re not a young lot and if this extension is applied retrospectively, it will probably deal a killer blow to our life-long efforts to preserve what little is left of this country’s early recording history. This is our country’s collective heritage. This decision will determine whether future generations will thank us for our efforts to preserve a disappearing part of our country’s culture, or curse a short-sighted decision which will deprive them of that valuable resource.
A RIGHT OR A RESPONSIBILITY
Let the majors have anything they will ACTUALLY reissue (and not just SAY they will reissue). If they do not actually reissue it, they should not have the right to repress or restrict our right to enjoy the music we love. They should not be able to effectively repress issue by demanding licence fees for records they do not even own. If they do have copies of historic recordings not otherwise in existence, maybe they could even be obliged to reissue them or let others do so in the interests of academic study. The only reason we enthusiasts have reissued these recordings is because the majors won’t! It is not for any financial gain – that is why the majors will never reissue them.
While modern large interests will no doubt prevail in this matter, any retrospective ruling should be considered carefully. These reissues sell in tiny quantities. There are no artists deprived by their reissue – they have all been dead for many years. Their relatives, who are thrilled to hear the now extremely rare recordings their famous forebears made, are among those who would be deprived by a 95-year retrospective ruling. Ultimately, though, the major loser would be our nation’s heritage. 78s are fragile things. All us collectors have broken some. It’s inevitable. Some exist in single copies. Some don’t exist at all anymore. With the best will in the world, it is inevitable that with deaths, damage, and the wear and tear of the years, more will inevitably disappear. The reissue programme must be done sooner than later if we want to preserve what we have left. Future historians and students of music hall and contemporary history, deprived of valuable source material, would surely not look favourably on any short-sighted decision taken now. Our right, maybe even our duty, to preserve the past for future generations is at stake here.
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
Max Beerbohm wrote, “Let me know a nation’s songs, and I shall know its history.” Old records are historical documents, no less so than early political and royal speeches (which could also be suppressed under a 95 year retrospective ruling). Aside from their wonderful entertainment value, music hall recordings are documentation of the star performers of the past, the Cliff Richards of their day if you want. They are also remarkably vivid and immediate social history records, and as near as we will get to contemporary comment. No, they ARE contemporary social comment, and as close as we will ever get to hearing the views of the “man in the street” on anything pre-1930. George D’Albert’s recording re riding early trams in the Elephant and Castle is brimming with contemporary social and sexual attitudes. This wonderful recording existed in just one original copy. We have reissued it, and it now exists on over 50 copies of the CD. Future students of the period will now be able to actually hear this incredible slice of contemporary social history, not look at a catalogue entry and wonder just what that recording might have told them.
The “dole” songs of the 1920s and 1930s are valuable social comment on the 1929 Depression, and will increasingly be seen as important documentation. Sold at a time of hardship for their potential working class audience, some are extremely rare. Will we be allowed to reissue them? We collectors – historical archaeologists – have worked hard to save what we can of such historical treasures. We would like the opportunity to share and collate the fruits of all our efforts with fellow collectors, make them accessible in modern formats to anyone interested, and to thus do our best to preserve these documents for future generations.
HINDRANCE TO HISTORICAL RESEARCH
To leave responsibility for the reissue of historically important recordings in the hands of concerns with solely commercial interests will be fatal. Their track record speaks volumes. We have reissued well over 600 professionally restored recordings so far, the tip of the iceberg, but already far more recordings than the majors have between them reissued in the past 60 years. They have sold in tiny quantities of typically under 100, just about covering costs, but we will continue to reissue them if allowed to. My aim is to preserve every important surviving music hall recording on CD, no matter how small the demand. The current 50-year cut-off date is of no concern to us. But our efforts to ascertain just what does survive, professionally restore and preserve it will be severely compromised by a 95-year retrospective ruling. The last major event covered by music hall song is the Second World War. So any retrospective cut-off should consider the academic value of Second World War recordings, and how desirable it is to have them available for study. To lock them up behind a copyright wall until 2041 is surely an unthinkable act, reprehensible to the general public and academicians alike.
No-one questions the importance of archaeological work. Early record collectors have, possibly unwittingly, undertaken archaeological work in their pursuit of recordings often scarcer than findings at ancient sites. It would be easy to be fooled into thinking such relatively recent artefacts are not under threat. They are. This will become obvious with the passing of another century. It is obvious now to long-term early record collectors. It is also obvious that most of the many recordings not already found now never will be, and that those we have managed to rescue so far are themselves in danger.
WHO WOULD GAIN?
The only people to gain from a retrospective copyright extension are the major record companies and living high-profile artistes. The major record companies are only interested in preserving their copyright in a chosen few high-selling artistes. Their interest in “poor sellers” is nil. Some living artistes fear losing copyright in their 1950’s recordings. Maybe a compromise would be to add “or artiste’s lifetime plus 25 years (or more as is thought fit)” to the current 50-year copyright period. This would surely placate Charles Aznavour’s and Cliff Richard’s fears, although admittedly not satisfying EMI’s concerns re their Elvis Presley back catalogue. But haven’t they made enough profits from them over the past 50 years? To base any decision on a few exceptional high-profile recordings, at the expense of effectively denying public access to the vast majority of recordings, would be to give unfair precedence to commercial considerations over public interest. 95 years is a long time, and, if artistes think their 1950s recordings will be anything other than museum pieces by 2046 they should look to history. The stars are the exception, and may still be reissued to some degree, as are 1930’s stars George Formby, Stanley Holloway and Gracie Fields now (but notably even reissues of these stellar artistes of yesteryear are not on their “parent labels,” EMI and Decca). But other less famous artistes should take care – they, their followers, and their descendents, may well be left wishing that the recording company they recorded for would either reissue their recordings – or that, as they probably won’t, an independent outfit could be allowed to do so – as did relatives of the Western Brothers, star performers of only 60 years ago.
No artiste who recorded before 1920 is still alive. The last one, Zona Vevey, died a few years ago aged over 100. If she were alive today, and the proposed copyright extension were in place, she would have no opportunity to hear the recordings she made 90 years ago and no longer possessed unless collectors like myself were allowed to reissue them. (I have them all, accumulated over 40 years of searching – EMI / HMV, who recorded them, almost certainly don’t).
FIFTY YEARS IS FINE
The current 50 years retrospective copyright would seem to me to be quite long enough. I think that most complaints against a 95-year retrospective will revolve around the public’s inability to access the music they love, which the majors no longer consider worthy of reissue. But if the majors want to hold on to their prize assets for longer, perhaps a “use it or lose it” clause would soon sort out just what they do want (eg Presley, Beatles, etc) – and what they don’t care about. If there is any extension to the current 50 year term might I suggest that it should come hand in hand with a proviso that if any recording over 50 years old is not reissued by, or allowed to fall out of catalogue by the “copyright owner,” it would seem safe to assume they have lost interest in it. It should then be available for reissue by others with no licence fee restriction. I think we would find, as Tim Brooks’ American study has shown, that they would be interested in less than 15% of all pre-1965 recordings (and even less from before 1945). I think the majors would admit they are not interested in reissuing minority interest material (something they have certainly said in private), and be happy to retain rights to their “best sellers” by keeping them in catalogue. The public, and avid collectors like myself, would be happy, as all we want is the right to access the music we love and care for.
TWO WORLD WARS!
The proposed 95 years is way too long. To show how ridiculously long this is, it would mean that we could not reissue any of the many World War One recordings until 2010-2014. Only EMI would be allowed to reissue World War One Regals, Jumbos, Scalas, Coliseums and Columbias – and they don’t have any of them. Only Decca would be allowed to reissue World War One Winners – and they don’t have any of them. We collectors do have them, but we would NOT be allowed to reissue them. Historians have been eagerly interviewing the few surviving combatants. A mere handful of the young men who went to fight in World War One are still with us. That is how long 95 years is! It is a ludicrously long period to tie up our history for.
World War Two – Well, we’d only have to wait till 2035-2041 to start a reissue programme of our accumulated Second World War recordings. Oh, that’s a shame – I probably won’t be here then! And who knows where my records will be – many collections have wound up in skips, smashed to smithereens.
A RETROSPECTIVE 95 YEARS – NO!
This should not just be about the interests of a few big companies and a few big stars. They are business concerns, and have no interest in reissuing loss-making old recordings just because they are of historical and social significance. This should also be about our heritage and our ability to keep it alive and maintain access to it. It should also be about taking a responsible attitude to preserving important historical recordings. With that as a consideration, there can be no doubt at all that a retrospective 95 years (effectively 96 years, as recordings would not come out of copyright until the end of the 95th year, i e the start of the 96th year) is far, far too long.
95 years retrospectively take us perilously close to the start of commercial recording around 1898. As most pre-1904 recordings remain undiscovered, it effectively means that we will be able to reissue just what we have rescued from the 6 years of recordings issued between 1904-1910, and a smattering from the years before. The rest will disappear behind the copyright barrier. Records were expensive, often poorly distributed and were extremely fragile. They have been through two World Wars, home removals, one hundred years of turmoil. We have a precarious hold on what has survived. There must be a point where these recordings pass from merchandise to historical documents. Our work is akin to that of archaeologists, unearthing the world portrayed in these early recordings. Surely their finds would not be suppressed for decades, with further chance of damage and even loss. 95 years would severely shackle our efforts. It is far, far too long.
FOOTNOTE
I must also add that I only found out about this matter less than a week ago, and have since been emailing other people with an interest in the matter. Amazingly, nearly all had no knowledge of it. They are in the process of emailing others, but the deadline for contributions is drawing close. As whatever publicity the matter seems to have had does not seem to have reached very many of the interested parties, including similar historic reissue concerns to mine, might I suggest to the Review that late contributions also be considered.
While I have attempted – unsuccessfully! – to be brief above, I have omitted many specific details of old recordings which would further demonstrate their fascination and importance. I can supply more details of these or expand the points I have made if asked by the Review – either by mail or in person if it would help.
While my comments refer to music hall recordings, they could equally be applied to rare and historic records in opera, speech, jazz, blues, country, ethnic and other fields.
Tony Barker
Music Hall Magazine
Cylidisc Music Hall CDs
April 21st, 2006 at 11:34
Tony Barker (above) makes some highly illuminating points regarding the inadequacy of the proposed changes to enable the continued promulgation of past productions. Notwithstanding that I firly believe in either the current 50 years or “x years after death” (comparable to print copyright) I do wonder whether an additional clause within any extension of the form “… where the recording for which copyright extension applies is producable by the copyright holder and that the recording is re-issed not less than every 25 years within the copyright period either by or on behalf of the copyright holder” would satisfy some of the needs to retain the availability of early recordings.