Why Brits chiefs bang drum for copyright laws to last 70 years

AS RECORD industry executives line up to toast the 2010 Brit Award winners tomorrow night, a copyright battle has been quietly raging in the background that is likely to erupt again later this year. Nominated artists such as Dizzee Rascal and Paolo Nutini can currently expect their sound recordings to remain in copyright for 50 years – and reap the royalties from their hits.

But Brits organisers the BPI contend that's not nearly long enough and is fighting alongside other industry bodies to significantly extend the term. Its argument is that companies and performers will lose out if copyright expires half a century after the date of the recording sessions.

But the reality is it's more interested in maintaining a business model based on the back catalogues of successful artists like David Bowie and the Beatles.

Legendary label owner Alan McGee has been forthright about what is at stake: "This is about major record companies protecting their rights, not about indies or small time musicians. It's about the f***ing Beatles."

The recordings of the Beatles will begin entering the public domain in a few years time and artists who had hits in the Fifties, such as Sir Cliff Richard, are already seeing this happen. It's no surprise they back an extension: for many ageing rock stars and musicians, copyright is seen as a retirement pension rather than a short-term monopoly and an incentive to reward creativity.

The "Extend the Term" campaign was originally orchestrated by trade magazine Music Week with the kind of propaganda to make Pravda proud.

It's a London-centric campaign that has ignored the views of musicians and industry representatives in other parts of the UK. North of the Border, there are no major labels and the live music industry has been shown to contribute more to the Scottish economy than the recording sector.

It seems unlikely a term extension would benefit small independents (such as Fence and Chemikal Underground) trying to invest in new talent, who would be delighted if they are still around 50 years from now. Their voices need to be listened to, not drowned out by majors with greater financial muscle and a particular economic agenda.

Many academics, meanwhile, remains unconvinced of the need for an extension. Researchers at Cambridge University looked at economic evidence for and against extending the term as part of the UK government's 2006 Gowers Review. Their verdict? That only a handful of performers would benefit from an extension because only a very small percentage of recordings continue to generate income for the entire duration of copyright.

The government initially accepted Gowers's recommendations that the term of 50 years for recordings should remain but the BPI and Music Week disagreed and have lobbied hard to convince culture secretary after culture secretary to perform a U-turn and settle on 70 years.

The row has now reached the European Parliament and will be debated again this year when the EU presidency switches to Spain, who are more likely to favour extension. If copyright is to be taken seriously by members of the public who might see it as irrelevant, it must act as an incentive to invest in new artists and recordings and not a windfall for the owners of old ones.

Let us hope any politicians invited to indulge in backstage backslapping at the Brits maintain a dignified distance amidst the recording industry razzmatazz and its attempt to convince us that British pop creativity will thrive only if allowed to continue making money from its musical pensioners.

• Paul Harkins is a lecturer in popular music at Edinburgh Napier University.