[pp.int.general] From 50 to 95 years, next tuesday: how are WE going to react to extension of commercial rights?

[Reinier Bakels]

> It seems that such issue will be voted next tuesday; are we going to help 
> Andrew Norton to write a common PPI press release? Regards

For those who have not seen them yet: arguments can be found in:
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf
Actually imho even better is (for those of you who read German):
http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/data/pdf/stellungnahme-bmj-2008-09-10-def.pdf
The latter document explains that the suggestion to protect the interests 
(pension) of "poor" artists is actually a counter-productive fallacy: such 
proposals distract the attention from the need for good copyrights contract 
law, that acknowledges the unequal negotiation position between a 
(beginning) artist (or author) and the record company (or publisher).
The extension will only benefit:
- artists of the 50s whose records are still frequently played: this is a 
happy few, like Sir Cliff Richard. They are either extremely rich, or they 
are drug addicts. In the former case they don't need the compensation, in 
the latter case it will kill them. Harddrugs are very unhealthy for aging 
people/
- otherwise: record companies: while the actual amount per artist will be 
minimal in this case, (only) the record companies will benefit for aggregate 
amounts that still may be substantial.
Note that such an extension will create tremendous problems for e.g. radio 
stations compiling programs of historic music - unless there is some lump 
sum agreement - which effectively amounts to another copyright "tax".

Hope this helps.

reinier