zunächst die EU-Vorlage:
The Commission adopted a proposal to extend the term of protection for performers and sound recordings to 95 years. The aim of the proposal is to bring performers‘ protection more in line with that already given to authors – 70 years after their death. The extended term will enable performers to earn money for a longer period of time and in any event throughout their lifetime. The income from copyright remuneration is important for performers, as they often do not have other regular salaried income. The extended term will also benefit record producers who will generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the internet. This should allow producers to adapt to the rapidly changing business environment and help them maintain their investment levels in new talent.
The proposal also contains accompanying measures which aim specifically to help performers. The ‚use it or lose it‘ clauses which will now have to be included in the contracts linking performers to their record companies will allow performers to get their rights back if the record producer does not market the sound recording during the extended period. In this way the performer will be able to either find another record producer willing to sell his music or do it himself, something that is possible easily via the internet. In case neither the performer nor the producer would wish to market the recording, the recording would no longer be protected. In this way, the term extension would avoid ‚locking up‘ those recordings that are not commercially interesting. Finally, record companies will have to set up a fund into which they will have to pay 20% of their revenues earned during the extended period. The money from this fund will be destined to help session musicians.
Bevor wir auf die löbliche Absicht eingehen, dass Musiker mehr verdienen können sollen, indem man den Zeitraum ihres Urheberrechts an ihrem Stück ausdehnt, würde ich gerne auf die beiden Ideen am Ende des Vorschlags verweisen: Der Musiker kann sich einen anderen Verwerter suchen, haben allerdings beide Seiten – das Label und der Musiker – kein Interesse mehr, wird das Stück frei. Und, die Labels sollen 20% ihrer Einnahmen aus der ausgedehnten Periode von 45 Jahren an die Musiker ausschütten. Soweit so gut.
Die Open Rights Group hat eine Gegenrechnung aufgestellt, was die Einnahmenseite der Musiker angeht, um zu untermauern, dass eine Verlängerung des Urheberrechts 80% der Musiker nicht helfen wird:
Our submission shows that for the vast majority of performers the projected extra sales income resulting from term extension is likely to be meagre: from as little as 50 ¢ each year in the first ten years, to as „much“? as „¬26.79 each year. That“s because most of the gains (89.5%) will go to the top 20% of recording artists. Meanwhile the major labels will be dividing up millions in extra handouts every year
Das soll diese Chart verdeutlichen:
An dieser Stelle sei auf zwei ältere Artikel verwiesen, die ein ähnliches Thema beackern (extreme Ungleichverteilung der Einnahmen zwischen Musiker und dem Rest der Verwertungskette):
Musiker und ihr gerechter Lohn & Courtney Love does the math
via Ars Technica
