Dominic McGonigal supports Extend The Term!(Extend The Term Campaign)

Economists ask what is the optimal term of copyright. Journalists pitch two sides against each other to find a story. Politicians look for a middle way between the two. The real question is, do we value our creative product and the people who create it? How long should someone be allowed to own what they create?

Every time a composer writes a song, something of themselves goes into the melody. Quite rightly, we as a society say the writer should own that song throughout their life, and beyond so they can pass on the fruits of their labour. The writer is then free to sell it, rent it, lease it or give it away, just like any other piece of property. The creators of the sound recordings --the performers and producers--enjoy similar rights. Producers own the sound recording and performers have economic rights, but for only about half as long as composers and other creators.

Until recently, this was perhaps only of academic interest. Now we are in a global online world where the currency is digital assets. Suddenly, it does matter whether the recordings of the Fifties and Sixties have a value. Suddenly, it does matter if they are owned, remastered and made available. The US realised this nearly 10 years ago. In 1998, they extended the copyright term to 95 years. Already, we are seeing UK record companies at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their American counterparts when dealing in older catalogue. That differential will only increase and, over time, will impact new artists and recordings.

Our detractors assert that copyright inhibits creativity, that our cut-and-paste culture demands a shorter copyright term (or presumably no copyright at all in their ...