Ageing pop star Cliff Richard is upset because the copyright on his records do not last longer than fifty years. He wants the copyright term extending so that he can carry on collecting royalties. Yet copyright has surely already served its purpose in Mr Richard’s case and rewarded him generously for his performances. As American copyright theorist Larry Lessig has said:

We rightfully grant the monopoly called copyright to inspire new creative work. But once that work has been created, there is no public justification for extending its term. The public has already paid. Term extension is just double billing. Any wealth it creates for copyright holders is swamped by the wealth the public loses in lower costs and wider access.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that copyright terms should last fewer years, anyway. For example, the current issue of Gramophone reports, referring to this BBC News story, that the British Library Sound Archive may lose forever important 20th Century music stored on deteriorating media because copyright law prevents copies being made.