Currently in the EU, there are separate copyright terms for composers and performers. Composers are awarded copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years. Performers hold a copyright for 50 years from the first recording. It's the 50-year term the IFPI wants to extend.

"We feel there is real discrimination here," Cunningham said. "Record companies in the U.S., their assets are valued much more highly because they have a much longer term of (copyright) protection.... When you have such a huge disparity, it's very hard to do business."

This just after the word that the UK wants to do the same thing [The Times, via devnull]:

James Purnell, the new minister for creative industries, believes the change will allow record companies to generate extra revenue to look for new talent and nurture it. Purnell, who will outline his plans in a speech next week, said: “The music industry is a risky business and finding talent and artists is expensive. There is a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record companies can plough money back into unearthing new talent.

In both articles record companies freely admit the change is to purely benefit them. The UK article indicates that without the income from Beatles recordings, their record company might not be able to run.

The EU article argues that they're having trouble running business because their output is "worth less" because the copyright term on their output is shorter. Bullshit. I'd love to hear one example of someone moving to the US specifically to get longer copyright terms on their music.

It makes me so angry to hear about any industry demanding law and society changes in order to keep running. They're all freely admitting they've dug themselves into a massive hole commercially. Where they cannot continue to run without the income of 50+ year old recordings. Recordings they knew at the time would expire in 50 years. They've had FIFTY YEARS to fix their problem and they failed. They should be allow to crumble into corporate dust so a better run company can rise in their place.

It's amusing to note the main arguement for extending the EU/UK copyright terms is so that they're more in line with the US. The exact same arguement the US used the other way when extending theirs for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extention act.

Seriously, why the hell don't they just make copyright permanent and be bloody done with it. They'd get away with it. Who's going to stop them?