Should a handful of major record labels be allowed to break the fifty-year-old promise on copyright, asks Suw Charman

The music industry has been lobbying the government for an extension to the term of copyright protection given to sound recordings for a couple of years now, but recently they've stepped up a gear. Why? Because the government's Gowers Review of Intellectual Property reports this month, and they want it to favour them.

The major record labels say that the royalties they earn from old recordings are essential to bringing new acts to the stage and supporting ageing musicians. They believe that the fifty year copyright term for sound recordings should be the same length as the copyright in the composition, which currently stands at life plus seventy years.

But copyright reformers argue that this term should remain the same, in order to protect the public domain and to free the huge number of old recordings which are no longer commercially viable and therefore not being released by the record labels. They also argue that there is a greater economic benefit to allowing works to pass into the public domain after fifty years so that new works can be made from them and new businesses that specialise in niche markets can flourish.

Copyright is a bargain. In exchange for releasing sound recordings to the public, copyright holders are granted a limited monopoly during which they can pursue anyone who uses their recordings without permission. But when this time is up, these works join Shakespeare, Shelley and Bernard Shaw in the proper place for all human culture – the public domain.

How long should the public be made to wait before sound recordings fall out of copyright?

The public domain is about to benefit from its half of the copyright bargain, as tracks from a golden age of recorded sound reach the end of their copyright term. For the first time, seminal rock 'n' roll, soul and reggae recordings will soon be freed from legal restrictions, allowing anyone to preserve, reissue and remix them.

Major record labels want to keep control of sound recordings well beyond the current fifty year term so that they can continue to make marginal profits from the few recordings that are still commercially viable half a century after they were laid down. Yet if the balance of copyright tips in their favour, it will damage not just the music industry as a whole, but also individual artists, libraries, academics, businesses, and the public.

The Open Rights Group has organised a public debate to be held at 6pm on Monday 13 November at Conway Hall, Holborn, to discuss the issue. Professor Jonathan Zittrain from Oxford University will be giving the keynote, which will be followed by a panel debate, moderated by John Howkins (RSA), and featuring Dave Rowntree (Blur) and Caroline Wilson (Southampton Law School) arguing against term extension, and Martin Talbot (Editor, Music Week) and a yet-to-be-confirmed representative from the music industry arguing in favour.

The event is free, and you can sign up online at http://releasethemusic.eventbrite.com/.

About the author
Suw Charman is executive director of the Open Rights Group.