La Comisión Europea encargó hace ya un tiempo al «Instituto para la Ley de la Información» (IViR) la búsqueda de argumentos en contra y a favor de la proyectada ampliación del término de duración de los derechos de copyright. Ahora, su director, el profesor Bernt Hugenholtz ha dirigido una carta al Presidente de la Comisión Europea, Don Jose Manuel Barroso, preguntándose por qué la Comisión ha desoído todas sus recomendaciones. Bernt Hugenholtz afirma que su equipo se quedó atónito al descubrir que sus estudios habían sido completamente ignorados por la Comisión y que esta había afirmado que no necesitaba ayuda de ningún tipo de experto externo.

El profesor Bernt Hugenholtz ha acusado directamente a Durao Barroso de tratar de confundir a los legisladores y a los propios ciudadanos de la Unión Europea.

La trifulca se produce en el seno de un proceso de reforma de la regulación de la propiedad intelectual en el que sectores de la industria tratan de que el legislador europeo amplíe los términos legales establecidos para el copyright. La Comisión, de momento, parece atender más a las demandas de la industria que a las de los consumidores y, de paso, desoye todas las advertencias que le está lanzando la comunidad científica. Especialmente significativo y relevante es el informe preparado por la Universidad de Cambridge que acredita lo pernicioso que sería una ampliación de la duración del copyright,

Hay que pensar que las grabaciones de los años 50 y 60 pronto pasarán al dominio público y la industria no va a dejar que ello ocurra; o al menos no dejará que ocurra pacíficamente. Lo increíble es que la ni los miembros de la Comisión ni el mismo Durao Barroso tengan la más mínima idea de lo que hay en juego en éste campo ni que sepan que la extensión del copyright es una amenaza para la innovación en su conjunto; que es favorecer a unos pocos perjudicándonos a todos. Evidentemente no es que no hayan oído a sus propios expertos, es que tampoco han leído a Lawrence Lessig. Ni quieren.

A continuación, el texto de la carta y de todos sus firmantes, eso sí, en inglés.

Sir, Europe’s recorded music was about to experience a wave of innovation. For the first time, a major set of culturally important artefacts was to enter the public domain: the sound recordings of the 1950s and 1960s. Apparently not so. If the European Commission has its way, re-releases and reworkings of recorded sounds will remain at the mercy of right owners for another 45 years (report, July 17). Why?

The record industry succeeded to supply the Commission with evidence that was not opened to public scrutiny: evidence that claims that consumer prices will not rise, that performing artists will earn more, and that the record industry will invest in discovering new talents, as if exclusive rights for 50 years had not provided an opportunity to earn returns.

The Commission’s explanatory memorandum states: “There was no need for external expertise.” Yet, independent external expertise exists. Unanimously, the European centres for intellectual property research have opposed the proposal. The empirical evidence has been summarised succinctly in at least three studies: the Cambridge Study for the UK Gowers Review of 2006; a study conducted by the Amsterdam Institute for Information Law for the Commission itself (2006); and the Bournemouth University statement signed by 50 leading academics in June 2008.

The simple truth is that copyright extension benefits most those who already hold rights. It benefits incumbent holders of major back-catalogues, be they record companies, ageing rock stars or, increasingly, artists’ estates. It does nothing for innovation and creativity. The proposed Term Extension Directive undermines the credibility of the copyright system. It will further alienate a younger generation that, justifiably, fails to see a principled basis.

Many of us sympathise with the financial difficulties that aspiring performers face. However, measures to benefit performers would look rather different. They would target unreasonably exploitative contracts during the existing term, and evaluate remuneration during the performer’s lifetime, not 95 years.

We call on politicians of all parties to examine the case presented to them by right holders in the light of independent evidence.

Professor Lionel Bently, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, University of Cambridge

Professor Pierre-Jean Benghozi, Chair in Innovation and Regulation in Digital Services; Director, Research in Economics and Management, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS 1, Paris

Professor Michael Blakeney, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London

Professor Nicholas Cook, Director, AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music, Royal Holloway, University of London

Professor Dr. Thomas Dreier, Director, Centre for Information Law, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Professor Dr Josef Drexl, Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich

Dr Christophe Geiger, Associate Professor and Director elect, Centre for International Industrial Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg

Professor Johanna Gibson, Co-Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Centre, University of London

Professor Dr Reto Hilty, Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich

Professor Dr Thomas Hoeren, Director, Institute for Information, Telecommunications- and Media Law, Münster University

Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam

Professor John Kay, Chair, British Academy Copyright Review

Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University

Professor Dr Annette Kur, Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property, Munich

Professor Hector MacQueen, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh

Professor Ruth Towse, Professor of the Economics of Creative Industries, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Bournemouth University

Professor Charlotte Waelde, Co-Director, SCRIPT/AHRC Centre Intellectual Property & Technology Law, University of Edinburgh