CON TEXT

Kevin Courtneyexplains Beatles Extension.

Noel Gallagher had one of those built onto his house, didn't he?

The Beatles extension is not the psychedelic wing of Supernova Heights - it's the term used by the record industry when referring to a proposed royalty extension for songwriters and recording artists. Currently, copyright on pop songs runs out after 50 years, when the song becomes public property, but musicians and publishers have been lobbying for the period to be extended to 95 years.

Ninety-five years! Sure no pop career lasts that long.

No, but a small number of pop stars are going into their 50th year in business, and besides, it's not just about the stars getting royalties - it's their children, grandchildren and teenage brides, too.

So, why is it named after the Fab Four?

It's known as the Beatles extension for a couple of reasons: one, because the popular Liverpool beat combo will be one of the first major acts to benefit; and two, because Yoko Ono has been one of the loudest voices calling for it.

That's some shriek she's got, too.

It seems to have worked, because last week the proposal became a reality when the EU announced plans to change the copyright laws so that artists can still keep getting royalties long after the 50-year cut-off point. For EMI, this is a godsend, because the first Beatles recordings were due to go out of copyright in 2012. EMI was facing the appalling vista that, by 2018, every Beatles song would be out of copyright, and anyone could put out a cheap compilation of Beatles hits without having to pay a penny in royalties.

A bad day for the cheap compilers, then.

But a good day for such artists as The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and The Beach Boys, all of whom would start to see their songs go out of copyright within a few years. One man in particular is very happy about the extension - Cliff Richard, whose hit Living Dollwas due to become public property this year. "I'm absolutely fed up with singing Living Doll," said the Peter Pan of Pop, "but I have sung it constantly since 1959 because every time I sing it live, it generates sales of the original record and royalties to me."

He can keep it. But, really, do these stinking rich rock stars really need any more money?

Pop stars don't have pensions, so royalty payments are essential to keep old rockers going into their old age. When bands such as The Rolling Stones and The Who were enjoying chart-topping hits, 50 years seemed an eternity - they probably expected to die before they got old. But with many old rockers refusing to die, the royalty extension means the money will keep rolling in.

Does anybody else benefit?

Session musicians who performed on records of the past will be relieved at the ruling, because often they're relying on just one or two classic hits to generate an income.

So, who do the stars have to thank for this 45-year extension?

Our own Charlie McCreevy, who, in his role as the EU's Internal Market Commissioner, has been, er, instrumental in ensuring that Cliff, Mick, Keef, Ringo et al keep getting their due.

Try at work:"Okay, guys, we're gonna have to take a few oldies off the setlist because they're still in copyright."

Try at home:"So, all the songs I've illegally downloaded are still in copyright - and that affects me exactly how?"