Comments for What is the optimal copyright length?

I will begin my point of view by defining the term copyright, which is an intellectual property: « Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. »

There is a good chance that the copyright system is born with the evolution of technology, and perhaps especially as a result of the invention of Internet. Indeed, this tool can be revolutionary for some things, but it can also be destructive for other things, such as the music industry. Undeniably, many people use Internet to download music for example, and therefore it is mostly illegal. Copyright is a means of protecting innovation authors: the copyright holder is ensured that his work is protected.

The discussion about the extension of the number of years of copyright has resulted in the formation of two groups with opposing views. The first is the one for this extension, allowing an increase in income.
The second is those who, on the contrary, oppose it. Indeed, according to them, a longest period would interfere with the creativity of individuals.

So, on one side, an extension of 20 years would provides an increase in new productions. Indeed, this important advantage makes possible to generate new things (songs in our case) because people feel protected if they decide to develop their invention. Moreover, there are more incentives for producers: among other things, it encourages them to do good work, knowing that it is protected.
On the other hand, it is important to know that this extension leads to an increase in costs. Moreover, increase the number of years up to 70 years may be a lot. Indeed, why ensuring many years of copyright, since, in general, a singer doesn’t have a career as long.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

The copyright length is a subject which is really difficult to solve. There’s no optimal solution and there will always have people who will criticize the decision of the adoption of the European Parliament. We can’t satisfy everyone. This is why the copyright problem is interesting.
From my point of view, I don’t think that the extension of the copyright length is a real bad solution.
First of all we have to remind us that the European Parliament already agreed to decrease the initial extension from 95 years to 70 years, which is according to me a huge step. Nevertheless I can totally agree that a 95 years extension was abused, but 70 years seems to be a good solution.
The first reaction people have in mind when we talk about this copyright extension is “wow, what’s this?! They still want to give those authors more royalties on time, why should they gain it on a longer period?” I can understand the reaction of those people but what they forget is that it’s the job of those authors. It’s seems normal that they are paid for what they do (like everyone else in fact) and we have to think that, in one part, it’s profitable for everyone. Everyone can listen music or watch TV thanks to those guys. As we’ve seen, the music industry is really in a bad way. Things have to change to avoid a big failure. This is why I encourage the change of extension which will permit to increase the innovation and may motivate the creation.
Like it’s mentioned on the text, “the increased copyright protection would also benefit producers, thanks to additional revenues deriving from the extension. A dedicated fund for session musicians was also supported by the Parliament. This fund would be financed by contributions from producers, who would be obliged to set aside for this purpose, at least once a year, at least 20% of the revenues gained from the proposal extension of copyright term”.
Thus it’s like a cycle: there’s an extension of the copyright length, producers are encouraged to produce other songs or whatever (with higher quality or with others ideas or innovations) and it will allow continuing the revenues’ contributions.
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20090422IPR54191

Concerning the debate about the extension of copyright length, I understand both sides.

In one hand, the opponents who claims that there is a high increase in cost because of this copyright extension causing a deadweight loss too important. The consumer surplus cannot stop to decrease and the producer surplus to increase. It’s like giving a monopoly power to the firms and oppressing the consumer: privileging one group over the another.

On the other hand the supports of copyright extension, which I feel closer. Indeed if you protect the work that has been done by an artist or an inventor for a sufficient period of time to make him get sufficient revenue, you will give incentives for other inventors to create because they will see that their work is recognized by the society: the fundamental property right principle. As it is explained in the Nordhaus Model, the longer the patent protection is, the higher the innovator’s return and hence his incentive to invest or to create more products (in this case, to imagine new songs).
However I would like to add that I am not in favor of unlimited duration of copyright length because according to the Nordhaus Model it will not be welfare maximizing. But in this case it is finite in time, extend 70 years more.

To conclude I would say that I agree with the extension of the copyright term for music recordings because I don’t beleive that someone’s brain, capacity to innovate, will be limited because of this extension.
On the contrary it will challenge people and push them to create brand new songs because they will be sufficiently rewarded for it and it will add new value to the society.

I believe that this topic brings huge economic interests by the recording industry, rather than by artists or composers of the music and lyrics of songs. And surely we are talking about big companies, which to date remain huge income even though through the past years they have been removing from the electronic market any attempt to exchange music for free.

Clearly, with this copyright extension there are two big winners, first, record company that will continue earning income by playing songs they belong and second, the artists that I think are the ones who will benefit least of this law. I don’t know why, but it is common to see on the news that great composers or artists live in a state of poverty even when they were creators of great music that still goes on the market, this makes me assume that the record companies are indeed those who get the higher percentage of earnings and will remain so, despite the new law proposes to allocate a percentage to a fund to help the session musicians.

If I were a musician, I personally would like to continue receiving royalties from my creations my whole life, even when I die, my family could continue having that right. But it would be a little selfish of my part, and also we know that the higher income from songs are generated at the time of its release and later there are just a few occasions when still valid except for very famous songs which still in the market. But being more realistic I think everything has an end and music also, and the length of 50 years seems reasonable to me, and I don’t see the need for the extension requested, except for the interests of the big companies. Furthermore, end users or customers would have the benefit of having free access to music or very low cost without the need to incur to piracy to get it electronically.

Without this reform in 2009, the hit songs of the 60s would have begun to fall into public domain. For instance, the first Beatles song (“Love Me Do”) would have been out of copyright this year (too bad!). Now, to be allowed to freely re-edit them, you will have to wait until 2032 at least.

Isn’t the timing too perfect to not notice some pressure from the majors of the music industry? As it was the case for the Copyright Term Extension Act with the lobbying of Walt Disney (the ‘fearsome company’, not the “wonderland” I used to see when I was a kid… – Free Mickey Mouse !) ?

When the European Commission discussed the possibility to extend the copyright protection to 95 years, record companies were all delighted. CEO of Universal Music France Pascal Negro had responded at that time: “It is good news just as the vinyl years are falling into the public domain.” Moreover, thanks to the retro fashion, these hit songs have kept a very high economic value.

Finally, the European Parliament decided to set the duration to 70 years. If it is still 25 years less than the first proposal, this extension looks more like the result of a compromise rather than an approach to choose the right balance. The optimal copyright length is the most likely to encourage performers and producers to create, and provide a real benefit to society at the same time. Finding one is a difficult task because there are few empirical studies.

However, I found a study published in 2007 that is based on interesting approaches: it is a white paper written by Rufus Pollock from the University of Cambridge. In this latter, Pollock proposes duration of 14 years after the creation of the work because, according to results of his calculations, it is at this time that the society’ welfare curve and the well-being of the author curve intersect at their highest point. He argues the optimal level of copyright protection is a positive function of the decreasing costs of production and distribution. In addition, the term of protection should decline as the stock of available works is increasing.

I find this approach interesting insofar as it takes into account the well-being of society. Music copyright term for performers could base on Rufus Pollock’s arguments to some extent. Although extending the duration brings more incentive to create, it also pushes back the benefits for society deriving from the falling into public domain of works and thus the well-being of society.

Whatever the case may be, the legislation adopted by the European Parliament doesn’t seem the good one. Yes, they did not accept the early proposition of 95 years. But who knows? Maybe they will proceed step by step: in 20 years from now, when the Beatles songs and those of others great artists are on the verge of being out of copyright, the record companies will put pressure again to add years.

In the meantime, many cult songs are still being held as hostages. And they will never be released if this game is repeated again and again…

References:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20090422IPR54191
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/4969-droits-d-auteur-14-ans-de-protection-avant-le-domaine-public.html
http://www.lefigaro.fr/musique/2008/02/15/03006-20080215ARTFIG00392-bruxelles-veut-rallonger-les-droits-des-musiciens-et-des-chanteurs.php

The copyright extension only applies to specific recordings, and essentially means that an artist and his recording company (depending on the contract between them) will continue to earn royalty for their recording each time it is played on radio or television, or used in other media (such as in a film soundtrack). I for one, am not in favour of the copyright extension.

Lobbyists for the extension claimed that it will help sessions musicians, who may have played some instrument on a track that is still receiving airtime, however this is simply not the case. The sessions musicians anyway only receive a pitiful share of the royalty and after discounting, the 20 year increase will result in them getting a negligible share of the revenue. It is telling that the law has been dubbed Cliff’s law, after Cliff Richards, and that one of its most significant proponents was Sir Paul McCartney. The extension will help only those musicians who recorded superhit songs which might still be receiving airtime 60-70 years later, as well the record labels which own these recordings. The chief beneficiaries of this law will therefore be people who have already made their millions.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing by itself. According to the Nordhaus model, the increase in incentives is only limited to a small number of popular groups and record labels, and is therefore not very significant, especially after discounting. However, increasing it will have other adverse effects: minor artists are not able to put their versions of the track on the market, thereby robbing them of a chance to earn money. A few musicians might even stop making music once they have a hit on their hands, as that gives them some assured revenue for 20 years. The public will also be deprived of the benefit of listening to the song. Most importantly it stifles the development of new bands and new innovations in music. A lot of innovation in music is driven by inspiration from what happened before and this inspiration could even be gained from an obscure track that was released 50 years ago. Because of the copyright extension, the current generation of musicians will have no exposure to some of the less popular trends from bygone eras (radio and television channels will simply not pay for playing songs that very few people will listen to). It also means that record companies will be less willing to take a risk on a new band, as they simply do not need to – they still make money from recordings from 50 years gone by. Hence, increasing the term of the copyright extension will encourage risk averse behaviour on the part of the record companies and this can prove to be very adverse to the development of music.

Thus I believe the copyright extension is bad for music in general, but is a classic example of the rich getting richer. Since, most music compositions generate most of their revenue in the first two years of recording, I think the term should be much shorter, say around 20 years. Anything more, and the copyright simply serves to fatten an already rich artist’s wallet, while simultaneously depriving the public the enjoyment of listening to the song, as well as stifling development of new bands and new innovation in music.

I choose to comment the ‘optimal copyright length’ because it is a topic really interesting for me because it is a discussion that I have been listening at my own home during my whole life because my father is a music producer in Spain and part of his benefits remain on the copyright. At same time he is member of the SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores Españoles) that it is the Spanish association where are registered all the copyrights of music and films in my country.
As you can imagine I support the importance of the defense of copyrights and an increase in their length; if my father or other authors of music or films, who actually are innovators, don’t receive part of the revenue of their job as copyrights, their initiatives will be affected because they will feel defrauded. So I totally disagree with the opponents who were convinced that the measure was likely to damage European creative endeavor and innovation.
I think that if a work is so well done to remain been used after 70 years, the author or his descendants have right to receive a monetary compensation due to their job. People who consume that good or creation do it because they like it, so they must accept that there must be a payment.
I really disagree with those people who think that listening music or watching a movie is a free right for them and can consume without paying anything, that for authors means a rip-off; and at same time they consider that paying for clothes is compulsory. So, why the clothes designers have right to receive money due to their job and not the authors of music and cinema?
I just want to finish with this open question.

I choose to comment the optimal copyright length. Copyrights grant the artist (which is in our case the innovator) an exclusive right to sell his work and to receive the income of the sales. I think that this debate has emerged with the internet because it changed the music industry ; the new technologies offered new ways of producing songs. This is why the question about the length of the copyright has appeared.

If we extend the copyright from 50 years to 70 years, it means that during 20 years people will not have access to the music and will not be able to appropriate it. In other words, they will not have access to culture which is not good. In this case, the welfare of the consumers will decrease.

On the other hand, if copyright or very short term copyright would not exist, everybody would be able to exploit the music and the price would be very low. More people would have access to the music and the society would be happier.

With the innovation, the creator seems to be a monopoly. Consequently, there will be a dead weight loss because the monopoly is able to charge higher prices. In the music industry, this dead weight loss is in fact a loss for the consumers. There will be less music available.

In opposition of the cons arguments, with a long duration of the copyright, firms will have more incentive to innovate new songs. They would like to innovate only if their innovation will be protected a maximum time.

Furthermore, long duration copyrights ensure higher revenues to the creator or his family. Usually, these kinds of creators don’t have any other source of revenue so the protection of their songs allows them to have revenues until the “song” goes in the public sphere. The extension of the copyright would also be profitable for the record label because it would receive the revenues of the sales on a longer period.

In conclusion, we can say that the longer the copyright is, the higher the social cost would be. According to my points of view, I would say that a shorter duration would be more profitable socially like 30 years.

Personally, I think it’s a good compromise.
On the one hand I understand the music industry. Indeed, the protection of cultural works encourages authors to produce quality word and encourages artistic creation. The author expects some reward for the work he provided. It is a monetary rent. The utility of the author is maximized by this protection while the utility of the consumer is also maximized. They look for quality work and this protection encourages the quality. That allows the satisfaction of consumer preferences. In addition, the protection prevents imitations of works already produced.
On the other hand I also understand the opponents. If copyright were removed, it would facilitate access to work of a greater number of members of society. Indeed there would be a reduction in costs. In addition, this suppression would allow easier diffusion of knowledge and expertise. These effects satisfy the preferences of people who wanted access to these works but who did not have the opportunity.
As Nordhaus says, we have to find the appropriate balance between innovator’s ability to earn a return on its R&D investments and, the benefits that will accrue to consumers once the patent expires and competition emerges.

Let us first analyze the costs and benefits of copyright in the music industry. The benefit helps overcome the “innovator’s problem”, it helps make music a non public good providing monopoly to the producer and hence providing incentives for him to invest in the required R&D to innovate and create. This in a way benefits the society by proving incentive to the producers to create. The cost of copyright in music industry comes from the producers controlling the quantity say the amount of copies of a record produced etc. This leads to a demand and supply situation where the producer can manipulate the prices by controlling the supply (since it is a form of monopoly) creating dead weight losses for the society. Secondly there is cost in the form of reduced innovations that would have taken place based on the work of the original innovator if only there was no copyright. Thus robbing the society of innovations that could have benefited them.
Although the optimal copyright length in music industry is a much-debated issue yet in my view the extension of copyright was an inappropriate one and the length of the copyright should be reduced in societies interest. If we were to compare the pros and the cons of having an extension in copyright length the pros would be the added economic incentive for the producer in anticipation of the additional compensation that he will get (20 years in this case). But if we were to consider the present value of these benefits it will be very small. For a rational person if the added benefit/ compensation is very small the additional incentive to produce is small too. Therefore the 20-year extension will lead to very little benefit for the society, as the additional incentive to produce will be small. On the other hand an extension will increase the cost of production of the innovations based on some present musical work, as it would require paying off the original creators. The present value of such costs for the other innovators will be higher that the benefit incurred to the original creator as the discounting time periods will differ. This might lead to a situation where the new innovators additional cost of production is much higher than the additional benefit for the original producer to innovate. Leading to a society where this extension will result in reduced innovation.

Music patent is a complex process in India where the patent is on a song which includes the lyrics and the melody. India also sees songs more as an integral part of the movie than single tracks. Hence, you have movie song albums selling more than an artist or track album. Due to this, the patent for the song primarily rests with the production house of the movie and encompasses the copyright on behalf of all the contributors of the creative content.

In India, the current duration of the copyright period is 60 years1 but this is over the entire song and hence the melody or the lyrics are widely seen to be reproduced. There are also significant gaps in copyright law implementation and piracy prevention – offline as well as online which again leads to rampant reproduction of the original work. Hence, the duration of the copyright is immaterial but the interesting fact to notice in relation to the current blog discussion is how does this situation affect the production incentives and public use. If we closely look at it, this is akin to a free market situation due to the gaps in law enforcement and hence can serve as a model for interesting insights. This free market situation leads to multiple reproductions of the musical composition in different regions with regional lyrics. The consumption of the good also happens widely often hastened by online piracy. Hence, if we look at it as a copyright with zero duration then there is still widespread production and consumption of music. This is not to say there is no hindrance for the musical composers but just to illustrate that a copyright duration is not substantial in the decisions of a musical composer. Also, as already pointed out by a classmate the original producer mostly gets the royalty for the composition only for a limited period after which it becomes the sole property of the music label/ movie production house.

Hence, I feel that the copyright duration should be limited to enhance other producers to use the original composition as a base as well as increase public use of the good.

Sources:
1. http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf