On Evidence-Based Policymaking

We take it for granted that a solid evidence base is a key requirement for government interventions. The Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform’s (BERR) five principles of good regulation state that any regulation should be “transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted”.

Yet the European Commission – in its proposed Term Extension Directive – is calling for an extension of the European copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years, which all the independent evidence suggests would be bad news for emerging talent and for consumers.

The theoretical trade-offs are well-known: an extended term of protection, it is argued, provides incentives for musicians to create new recordings, but it also prevents artists from innovating on the back of published music and diminishes the choice of music available on the market. Which effect dominates, and the case for term extension – should rest on a careful consideration of the empirical analysis.

Happily, an international group of 50 leading academics has done just that in the Bournemouth University statement submitted last month to the European Commission.  The academics have carefully reviewed the available independent evidence and have shown overwhelmingly that the proposed term extension would be bad for Europe’s creativity (though good for a relatively small number of long-living performers and their estates).

The academics wrote to The Times earlier this week to call on policymakers to examine the case in light of the evidence.  Three cheers for the academics!

Comments

[Sami]

I am not familiar with the pros and cons of this issue, but a look at the music industry in countries where copyrights are not protected or where protection is not enforced (e.g. Arabic countries)does not support the idea that protection leads to more innovation. Over the last 60 years there have been several new fashions of Arabic music where in fact old classics have been fused with more modern tunes and instruments. Also there is a big trend of international music fusion where tunes and words are borrowed from different languages and cultures to create a new creoles of muisc.
So, I am not sure how protection would have led to more innovation in the music industry. And I am not arguing against a regular 20 years protection right, but 50 or 95 may be too protectionist.