No FT, No Idea

The FT seems not to understand copyright:

Brussels is expected to push ahead next week with reforms that would allow European singers and musicians to enjoy proceeds from their work for many more years.

Proposals to extend copyright protection for performing artists from 50 to 95 years were first outlined by internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy in February and could be approved by the European Commission at Wednesday’s meeting.

If so, Europe would move into line with the US, and musicians – from ageing rock stars to session players – could enjoy a boost to their pensions.

Copyright is supposed to provide an *incentive* to create, not a *reward* for having created. Increasing the term of copyright protection will not suddenly make ageing rockers more creative. Moreover, the prospect of an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to make young rockers rush out and create more. So this is a pure loss for the public domain. Thanks for nothing, Charlie.

Charlie's Not My Darling (Again)

Charlie McCreevy is a one-man disaster area: first he tries to bring in software patents for the European Union, now he wants to extend copyright for performers. I could rant about this but Mike Masnick has already said everything that needs to be said:

It's important to be entirely clear here: this is a total and complete bastardization of copyright law. Copyright law was intended to grant the creator of content a deal: you create new content and we will give you a limited time monopoly on the rights to that content before passing it on to the public domain, from which everyone can benefit. It was designed as an incentive system, providing a gov't backed monopoly in exchange for the creation of content. By creating content and accepting that deal, musicians clearly said that it was a reasonable deal. To later go back and change the terms for content already created and extend copyright makes no sense and is violating the contract made with the public. You can't newly incent someone to create content that they already created 50 years ago. Thus, the only reason to extend copyright is if you believe that it's really a welfare system for musicians. If that's the case, then we should be explicit about it, and present it that way, rather than calling it copyright.

That's not all that McCreevy has up his sleeve either. He's also apparently a huge fan of copyright levies that add taxes to any blank media for the sake of reimbursing musicians just in case you happen to use that blank media to record unauthorized material. It's effectively a you must be a criminal tax. So, basically, McCreevy's plan is to treat all consumers as criminals, forcing them to cough up extra money for musicians, while also setting up a welfare system for musicians hidden in the copyright system. Musicians must love him, but it's a bit ridiculous for him to claim these proposals make sense because "copyright protection for Europe's performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances". Does Mr. McCreevy earn a living from something he did 50 years ago? Does Mr. McCreevy get a cut every time a consumer buys something just in case they commit a crime?

Superb stuff, Mike.

European Patents: Not So Obvious

Here's a depressing little document:

Patents are a driving force for promoting innovation, growth and competitiveness.
...

It is suggested, moreover, that there is a correlation between the use of intellectual property rights and good innovation performance.

Mind you, given that this is a product of Charlie "Microsoft is my darling" McCreevy, it's little wonder that it's full of such arrant nonsense.

God Bless Bickering

Poor Charlie:

The EU Internal Markets Commissioner has warned that Europe is about to miss out on a chance to forge a pan-European patent disputes forum because of long-standing international bickering on what a system might look like.

Following further fruitless discussions between European countries this week, Charlie McCreevy has warned that the entire plan could stall. “Anything remotely concerning this patent area is fraught with minefields at every turn of the road,” McCreevy told the Financial Times.

EU Parliament Gets a Touch of the Opens

Blige, serious goings-on in the EU parliament. In a text recently adopted, it

18. Takes note of the Commissions' view that the EU must acquire a cost-effective, legally watertight and user-friendly system of intellectual property protection so as to attract technologically advanced companies; considers that the protection of intellectual property must not interfere with open access to public goods and public knowledge; urges the Commission to promote a socially inclusive knowledge-based society by supporting, for example, free and open source software and licensing concepts like the General Public License (GPL) and the Public Documentation Licence (PDL);

This is a gauntlet thrown down to the European Commission, particularly Microsoft's friend, Mr McCreevy. I wonder what will happen next. (Via Heise Online.)