<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Uma biblioteca vai, naturalmente, defender seus interesses enquanto
biblioteca. E acho, se você me permite, um tanto presunçoso avaliar "o
quanto estão distantes de um debate mais sério" sem ter lido o
documento ao qual o texto se refere. O que está em jogo são os
interesses da EMI sobre os direitos de produção das gravações dos
Beatles, que estão por expirar. A figura do pobre executante que vai
ser privado de seu sustento por uma lei injusta é uma de retórica.
Segue uma análise mais explícita, assinada por um economista.<br>
<br>
+++<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">Lennon was right about music and the man
By John Kay
Published: April 16 2008 03:00 | Last updated: April 16 2008 03:00
Charlie McCreevy, European commissioner for the internal market, recently announced his intention "to propose to the College [of commissioners] that its term of copyright protection for European performers be increased from 50 to 95 years".
It is just possible that Mr McCreevy does not understand that copyright on recordings does not vest in performers but in producers, which are in almost all cases record companies. But we can be certain that Guy Hands, whose Terra Firma is the new private equity owner of EMI, Britain's leading record company, does. So it is no surprise that Mr Hands welcomed the Commission's proposal to extend sound recording copyright. However Mr Hands' statement applauded the plan not for its benefit to his shareholders, but on behalf of European artists.
Intellectual property is a new asset class for investors. The music created when British artists transformed popular culture in the 1960s is especially valuable. Since the revenues from extensions will flow through to the bottom line, owners of these rights find it worthwhile to devote substantial resources to lobbying for them. Since this cause is devoid of merit and receives no public sympathy, investors have retreated into the shadows and recruited well-known musicians to front the case.
That is the simple story. The detail is more complex. There are two main copyrights in popular music: copyright in the songs and copyright in the recordings. The right to the songs belongs to the composer and lasts for 70 years after his or her death. The right to the recording belongs to the producer and in Europe lasts for 50 years from the date of the recording.
Both rights can be assigned. Most Beatles compositions, for example, were transferred to a company called Northern Songs. The shares have passed through many hands, including those of businessman Robert Holmes à Court, Michael Jackson and the Sony Corporation. The sound recordings are mainly owned by - you've guessed it - EMI. Paul McCartney owns the rights to "Love Me Do" not because he composed the song or because he sang it, but because he bought them from Mr Jackson.
Performers derive their income not from copyright but from their contracts with record companies. Session musicians, like technicians, will normally simply be paid for the jobs they do, but featured artists will generally earn royalties. Normal practice is to pay an advance against royalties. In most cases, this is the only payment ever made, because the advance is not covered by the subsequent royalties.
The vast majority of recordings cease to have any commercial value within a few years and are available only in libraries. Extension of copyright buries such recordings still more deeply in dust, because they cannot be used without the permission of people who have no continuing interest in their old songs, and may indeed be dead. However, the few works that are still available after 50 years were mostly major hits and some performers, their advances repaid, may now be earning royalties. In this indirect way, a few successful artists might derive some benefit if copyright extension allowed record companies to earn higher revenues.
It is possible that Mr McCreevy is really talking about performing rights in sound records. These are a product of the scheme that shares revenues from pubs, clubs and broadcasters between publishers and artists, and they give a share of revenue to session musicians.
But the notion that extending these rights would provide pensions for ageing and impoverished crooners is an engaging fantasy. The typical annual payout is a few pounds - perhaps enough to buy a drink as musicians listen nostalgically to the recordings they performed, but whose copyright they do not own.
There is a case for proposals that might strengthen the rights of musicians against record companies, but that is definitely not the result of copyright extension. If those 1960s veterans understood better what was going on, they might echo the comments of the greatest performer of the era. As John Lennon lost control of his own compositions, he raged against the men in suits sitting on their "fat arses in the City".
---
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.johnkay.com">www.johnkay.com</a></pre>
<br>
<br>
Alexandre Negreiros escreveu:
<blockquote cite="mid:A39F85C1-D27D-4B94-9940-928D3FEA3CB4@yahoo.com.br"
type="cite">
<div>Oi Carlos e todos,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>É que, na avassaladora maioria das legislações internacionais,
as proteções (para autorais e conexos) se equivalem em termos de
extensão de tempo. Como a União Européia impõe limites semelhantes aos
seus membros, e pelo visto a Finlândia possui prazos diferentes, surge
esse "protesto" que me parece mais sincero ali no ítem 6, quando o
autor reclama da dificuldade extra que os bibliotecários passarão a ter
para desempenhar seus papéis.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sem pretender me aprofundar, logo no primeiro ítem demonstram o
quanto são distantes do debate mais sério, quando diz que "não podem se
equiparar as proteções". Quando a comunidade internacional os assumiu,
em 1961 (por isso ele diz que na Finlândia não havia qualquer proteção
até então), através da Convenção de Roma, tutelada pela OMPI, vinculada
à ONU, os fez repousar sob o mesmo amparo dos direitos autorais, daí
são chamados de "autorais conexos", ou em inglês "neigboring", ou
"related" rights. E assim as legislações nacionais procederam, embora
sejam operados por sociedades distintas (de autores e de performers) na
administração de cada um deles, com exceção do Brasil, é claro, onde
estão todos no mesmo bloco, o que é péssimo, apesar de "vendido" como
grande avanço. Tenho um estudo da CISAC demonstrando a diversidade de
tratamentos entre direitos autorais e conexos na Europa, e apesar do
autoral preponderar sobre os conexos em muitas e importantes nações, há
muitos casos em que são distribuídos mais recursos aos conexos do que
aos autorais, em proporção que atinge até 11 para 1, exatamente para
compensar o tempo que o autoral recebeu sozinho. A proporção brasileira
média é de 2/3 para o autoral e 1/3 para o conexo, mas a lei cometeu a
imprudência de delegar ao ECAD a definição do fonograma, o que os
permite limitar o pagamento de conexos a uma fração das gravações
veiculadas.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As autorizações (junto aos titulares) são muito semelhantes para
obras intelectuais ou fonogramas, e especialmente na Europa, onde
prevalecem os "direitos de remuneração", e não há problemas sérios para
se consegui-las. O mesmo não posso dizer do Brasil. Lá, o sujeito usa,
faz os registros de seu uso e passa a dever (na grande maioria dos
usos, especialmente os de finalidade educacional). Aqui é que ele teria
que pedir ao bispo. O que ele alega no ítem 4, que não poderá fazer sua
cópia de segurança, é uma grande bobagem, uma vez que em quase toda a
Europa, aliás em quase todo o mundo, há regulamentado o direito à cópia
privada, e exatamente por isso cobra-se uma determinada taxa sobre as
mídias virgens, como forma de remunerar os prováveis autores que serão
copiados, em nome desse uso. E os critérios de distribuição são
bastante interessantes e, apesar das reclamações, eficientes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>O debate sobre o aumento da proteção é controverso, e visto com
certa desconfiança porque o PRAZO é parte da filosofia da proteção à
propriedade intelectual, surgida já em meio à preocupação com o
desenvolvimento da sociedade, propiciado pela circulação e difusão
deste mesmo conhecimento que se buscava proteger. Mas sem ele, o autor
não se protege e não subsiste, então o "acordo" foi alcançado a partir
do estabelecimento dessa limitação, que funciona para o direito autoral
e para as patentes, onde há um instituto ainda mais controverso: o
segredo industrial, quando a empresa pode abrir mão da proteção do
estado para tentar garantir o domínio do seu invento "para sempre", ou
até que alguém descubra como se faz. Poucos optam por essa estratégia,
por motivos óbvios, e a maior parte dos depositários aceitam a proteção
total por alguns anos, comprometendo-se a expor seu invento quando o
prazo terminar.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Já me estendi, não tenho jeito... Vou ler o tal Gowers report,
depois eu comento.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Abçs</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alex</div>
<br>
<div>On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:24 AM, carlos palombini wrote:<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div 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>
<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>
</div>
________________________________________________<br>
Lista de discussões ANPPOM <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://iar.unicamp.br/mailman/listinfo/anppom-l">http://iar.unicamp.br/mailman/listinfo/anppom-l</a><br>
________________________________________________</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13 - Release Date: 12/4/2008 00:00
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>