<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
A Biblioteca Nacional da Finlândia e a Associação Finlandesa de
Bibliotecas prepararam um documento contestando a extensão de
copyright, de 50 para 90 anos, "a fim de dar aos executantes a mesma
proteção dos comporitores", que está para ser levada ao Parlamento
Europeu. <br>
<br>
+++<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">1. The
copyright protection of performers cannot be equated with the
protection
of composers and other authors. Most compositions have only one or two
authors; the term of protection is counted from the death of the
longest-living
author. Rights in sound recordings belong jointly to the record company
and performers participating in recordings, sometimes more than a
hundred
of them. Companies do not have a year of death. Extending the term of
protection
to 95 years would inevitably lead to situations where some sound
recordings
would be protected longer than the works recorded, resulting in new
demands
for extended protection.</font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">It is true that a small number
of living performers will lose income from the broadcasting of their
recordings
when the present term expires. However, in Finland, record producers
and
performing artists did not have any copyright protection until 1961.
For
a long time, the term of protection was 25 years. This state of affairs
was well known to all parties, when recordings were made. The
protection
of performers and producers has already been extended retroactively
several
times; no other professional group has ever received such special
treatment.</font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">2. Commissioner
McCreevy has not published any estimates of the additional income which
performers would gain from the extension. 50-year old records are only
broadcast infrequently, 95-year old records almost never. For most
performers
and their estates, the extra income would only be a few euros annually,
if anything. The damage caused by the extension would be much larger
than
the benefits. </font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">3. The
extension of the copyright term has previously been proposed in the EU
on the basis of the competitiveness of the European recording industry.
It was claimed that European record industry would be less competitive
than the US industry, which already has 95-year protection. In Britain,
the Gowers report convincingly proved that such claims were false. If
anything,
the shorter term makes European record industry more competitive.</font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">In the United States, there have
been studies of the damage caused by excessively long protection. In
practice
record companies have not been interested in marketing recordings which
are more than 50 years old, because demand for them is marginal.
Neither
have they been willing to license them to other companies. As a result,
in the USA most recordings which are more than 50 years old are
available
for educational and research purposes only as European reissues. If the
proposed extension goes through, the availability of historical
recordings
will dramatically decrease in Europe, too.</font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">4. The
extension of the term of protection would not only apply to
commercially
published recordings. It would apply to all sound recordings, including
broadcasts, private recordings and recordings made for research
purposes.
Without the permission of the rights owners, protected recordings
cannot
be used for any purposes. For instance, if an archive receives a home
recording
made in the 1950s, it would not be able to make a digital preservation
copy without the permission of the rights owners, who may be unknown.</font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">5. The
extension of the term of copyright would eventually create a huge
“orphan
works” problem. Ninety-year old recordings could not be used for any
purpose
without the permission of the rights owners, but in many cases it would
be impossible to identify them. In the course of time, many record
companies
will change owners, cease operations or go bankrupt. Even the states
where
they once operated may cease to exist. The performers die and the
rights
pass to second and third generations. Because most recordings have
little
economic value after such a long period, the changes will not be
documented
anywhere.</font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">6. The
extension of the term of copyright would endanger the pioneering work
of
the Finnish National Library in making historical recordings accessible
to the public. The National Library is legally responsible for the
preservation
of national cultural heritage and providing related information
services.
The National Library has digitised in the RAITA database a major part
of
public domain Finnish sound recordings. The proposed extension would
make
this task much more difficult. If the extension is made retroactively,
most of the materials would have to be closed for the public. </font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">7. In
the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, copyright and access
are
seen as two rights of equal importance. The extension will result in
unreasonable
restrictions to the freedom of information, unless proper balances are
created. The harmful consequences of the extension to libraries and
archives
are well documented, while the there are no studies of the alleged
benefits.
As the Gowers report noted, it will be possible to extend the term
later
on, if this proves necessary, but it will be very difficult to shorten
it, if it has proven excessive.</font>
<br>
</body>
</html>