Barry Sookman
  • Bio & expertise
    • Bio
    • Technology & Internet Lawyer
    • Copyright and Intellectual Property Lawyer and Litigator
    • Privacy & CASL
    • Government Relations
    • Rankings
  • Books & Articles
  • Speeches & Media
  • Terms
    • Privacy Policy
This site is about technology, copyright, and privacy Law
Barry Sookman
Barry Sookman
  • Bio & expertise
    • Bio
    • Technology & Internet Lawyer
    • Copyright and Intellectual Property Lawyer and Litigator
    • Privacy & CASL
    • Government Relations
    • Rankings
  • Books & Articles
  • Speeches & Media
  • Terms
    • Privacy Policy
Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • copyright reform

Economic effects of term extension for sound recordings

  • April 30, 2015
  • Barry Sookman
Copyright term extension
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0

Last week the government announced an extension to the term of protection for performers and makers of sound recordings, increasing the term from 50 years to 70 years. In doing so, the Government exhibited respect for artists and their music and decided to act before their valuable recordings fell into the public domain.

Michael Geist was quick to criticize the announcement, claiming it could cost Canadian consumers “millions of dollars” and that it would result in fewer works entering the public domain. In support of his claims, Geist referred to several “studies”.

The renowned economist, Prof. George Barker, just published a report Debunking Common Myths: The Economic Effect of Copyright Term Extensions for Sound Recordings and a blog post,  thoroughly examining each source Michael Geist relied on. Prof. Barker concluded that each of the cited sources had fundamental flaws, economic theory and data did not support the assertions made by Geist, and further, the “studies” forming the basis of Geist’s opposition to the term extension were rejected in the EU, the U.K., and in Australia in their decisions to extend copyright term protection in those jurisdictions.

Prof. Barker concluded:

This report examined and debunked four myths about the likely economic consequences of copyright term extension following the Canadian government’s recent Budget announcement on April 21, 2015. The four (4) myths are as follows:

Myth 1: Heavy Costs to Consumers in Royalty Payments.

Myth 2: Royalty Payments Will Be Sent Out of the Country.

Myth 3: No Additional Incentive for Creativity.

Myth 4: Less Entering the Public Domain.

In each case we have shown why economic theory and data do not support these conclusions. These common mistakes in economic analysis have however been revived from the 2005-9 UK and EU debate, and the 2005 Australian debate on term extension. In each of those cases, these arguments were considered and rejected by policy makers in deciding to extend the term of copyright. The same should be true for Canada. Term extension is an efficient way to restore returns to investment in creativity, which was devastated by the growth of digital piracy from 2000. By increasing returns, and therefore the incentive to invest in creativity, term extension will help increase the supply of new creative goods, enhance consumer choice, competition, and quality, and lower prices in the long run. It will also help to enhance incentives to invest in, and market existing creative goods, and to maintain and enhance their quality, safeguarding our cultural past and musical legacy, while enriching both the present, and the future.

For more information about the term extension, see Term extension and respect for artists: a reply to Michael Geist and Canada to extend copyright term for artists and record producers.

Related

Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0
Related Topics
  • sound recordings
  • term extension copyright

Subscribe

Subscribe now to our newsletter

You May Also Like
Barry Sookman Copyright Lawyer
View Post
  • communication to the public
  • Copyright

Five Tech Cases Everyone Needs to Know – SOCAN v CAIP

  • Barry Sookman
  • October 25, 2023
Copyright and generative AI
View Post
  • artificial inteliigence
  • copyright reform

Canadian consultation on the implications of GenAI for copyright.

  • Barry Sookman
  • October 12, 2023
All In AI Event Sookman Keynote speech
View Post
  • AI
  • AI Ethics
  • AI Regulation
  • artificial inteliigence
  • Copyright

AI, Copyright + the Wisdom of Experience: my keynote speech at All In

  • Barry Sookman
  • September 30, 2023
Voltage copyright infringement
View Post
  • Copyright
  • infringment

Internet account holders not liable for copyright infringement of their users: Voltage v Doe

  • Barry Sookman
  • September 28, 2023

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe

Subscribe now to our newsletter

Barry Sookman
This site is about technology, copyright, and privacy Law

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

We may be using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Barry Sookman
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website may use cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.