KEY POINTS:
The music industry has reacted with alarm to reports that it has lost its battle to extend copyright protection for older performers.
Sir Cliff Richard, Mick Hucknall, Katie Melua and Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull are among the stars to have called for an extension of the current
50-year limit - compared with the 95 years enjoyed by performers in the United States.
The problem is particularly pressing for those who do not write their own material and therefore lose all the income from their back catalogue just as they reach pensionable age.
The issue is hitting headlines now because the first rock and roll hits of the 1950s are coming out of copyright.
But it appeared yesterday that Andrew Gowers, the former Financial Times editor who was asked by the Chancellor to investigate the UK's intellectual property rights, will advise against the extension when his independent report is released next week.
Performers and the music industry have argued that the current limit is unfair because it is much shorter than that enjoyed by composers and other creative artists such as authors, whose work remains in copyright until 70 years after their death.
Record labels argue it also means they are prematurely deprived of profits that could be invested in new acts.
But unconfirmed reports indicate that Mr Gowers has not been convinced by arguments that the disparity is prejudicial to a thriving creative sector.
Performers and record labels united to ask him to think again.
Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull said: "If the details behind this leak are accurate I want to go on record as expressing my extreme disappointment [that] a government that might be willing to throw away hundreds of millions of pounds of income to the Exchequer - lost VAT, lost mechanical income, lost broadcast income - in exchange for an easy ride.
"It's a sad day if an industry that has contributed so much culturally and commercially can be treated so dismissively."
Peter Jamieson, of the BPI, which represents the British recorded music industry, said the Government could and should ignore the independent review.
"There can be no rationale for discriminating against performing artists - a vital part of the creative mix - nor can it be possible to justify disadvantaging Britain and Europe in the global music market," he said.
"The sound recording is as important a copyright as musical composition and film, and deserves a similar lifespan."
Fran Nevrkla, chairman and chief executive of PPL, a not-for-profit company which collects and distributes airplay and performance royalties in the UK, said he hoped the Government would have the "moral fibre and courage" not to duck the issue by hiding behind those who wanted to see copyright downgraded.
The National Consumers Council, for example, has argued that all copyright terms should be reduced to fit more closely the time period over which the returns on investments are normally made.
It further argued that future intellectual property law should be based on an assessment of the costs and benefits to society as a whole, not individual creators.
But Mr Nevrkla said: "Nobody can justify the current discrimination against performers and record companies by keeping the term of copyright protection for sound recordings shorter when compared with every other creative sector."
Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, announced the independent review of the UK's intellectual property framework a year ago.
Acknowledging that economic competitiveness was increasingly driven by knowledge-based industries, Mr Gowers was asked to examine whether the current UK system struck the right balance between consumers and rights-holders or whether improvements could be made.
Neither he nor the Treasury would comment yesterday but the full report is expected to be published at the time of the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report next week.
- INDEPENDENT
