mr president despite an enterprising charm offensive from the commissioner and his services i still cannot support this proposal to extend the copyright term
i know the proposal was well meant but in the digital era when the way in which recordings are distributed is rapidly changing why should we make an irreversible change by extending a system that at its core still operates with contracts and a structure more relevant to physical distribution and sale
the only hope to rescue that situation is to address the matter of contracts that have become unfair over time and this has not been done
we should be making it clear that assignment for life without renewal clauses is no longer acceptable and one of the prices recording companies must pay for any extension
a lot of commendable work has been done to impose good conditions in return for the extension but i fear these bolt-on additions do not render it fully fit for the purpose in the long-term future and they also contain their own inconsistencies and unfairness because they have not addressed the matter of contracts
i have looked for a compromise that i could live with and i did offer the idea of limiting the term extension to recordings published before nineteen seventy-five as appears in alde amendments eighty and eighty-one which are compatible with the main package
i admit that this is a fix for the rock-and-roll era which is concentrating minds right now and which saw both an explosion in popular music and remarkably poor contracts
however such an amendment would not put us in an irreversible position for all newer recordings
it would see us through to the end of the current model of recording companies which are when all is said and done the main beneficiaries of and agitators for this extension
it would also give us time to reflect on and develop more performer- and future-oriented proposals really fit for a digital age
if you come back addressing the points that i have raised then it could be a package worth voting for but otherwise i cannot support it
