The music industry has reacted with outrage to the government’s rejection of pleas to extend the period musicians get royalties from their tracks beyond the current 50 years.

Musicians and record labels slammed the decision not to take the advice of a highly regard committee of MPs and pursue a longer copyright term in Brussels. They said ministers’ refusal to fight for a longer royalties lifespan from music tracks, which many musicians describe as their pension provision, showed performers were seen as “second-class citizens”.

The Who singer Roger Daltrey was one of the first artists to attack the government’s stance.

“Thousands of musicians have no pensions and rely on royalties to support themselves. These people helped to create one of Britain’s most successful industries, poured money into the British economy and enriched people’s lives. They are not asking for a handout, just a fair reward for their creative endeavours,” he said.

The campaign for a longer copyright period in the UK has recently gathered pace as the fruits of the late-50s explosion of UK rock’n'roll will start falling out of copyright soon.

A broad coalition of industry groups and artists including Cliff Richard, whose earliest recordings will be among the first to drop out of copyright from 2008, have loudly campaigned for the copyright term to be extended to 95 years. They recently secured the support of Conservative party leader David Cameron as well as other MPs.

The Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee back calls for extension of copyright term for sound recordings to at least 70 years, “to provide reasonable certainty that an artist will be able to derive benefit from a recording throughout his or her lifetime”.

Impact of the Gowers report

The government today responded by referring to a report into copyright by former FT editor Andrew Gowers and another by the European commission.

“Taking account of the findings of these reports, which carefully considered the impact on the economy as a whole, and without further substantive evidence to the contrary, it does not seem appropriate for the government to press the commission for action at this stage,” it said in a statement.

The Gowers report conclusion was made on the basis that extending the term could harm Britain’s trade balance and provide little practical benefit to artists while hampering creativity and consumers.

Musicians had been hoping the government would ignore Mr Gowers’ advice and instead recognise the select committee’s view that such a stance disregarded the moral rights of performers.

Geoff Taylor, head of the UK music industry lobby group BPI, said the government had failed a test of its support for British music.

“Ministers appear to have selective hearing on this issue - they have ignored the views of artists and their union, managers, record labels and now even a parliamentary select committee,” he said. “We will continue to put forward the strong case for fair copyright in Europe. It is profoundly disappointing that we are forced to do so without the backing of the British government.”

In a digital world where songs can be archived forever, the issue of copyright is crucial to the future revenues of record labels. They argue that in other creative fields the copyright term is more generous and that other countries, including the US, benefit from longer term.

A failure to extend copyright could threaten the UK’s strong position in creating music, said John Kennedy, head of international music companies association IFPI.

“Some of the greatest works of British music will soon be taken away from the artists who performed them and the companies that invested in them. Extending copyright term would promote vital investment in young talent and new music, all of which will help to secure the UK’s future as an exciting music market.”

The body that collects fees for using music from broadcasters, nightclubs and restaurants and then redistributes them to musicians, said the government’s decision flies in the face of research into copyright terms.

“This announcement effectively makes all performers and record companies second class citizens in the copyright environment. This deliberate continuing discrimination is hard to understand because it cannot be justified,” said Fran Nevrkla, head of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).

A SECURITY guard was jailed for eight years today for killing a disabled grandfather who gave him a V-sign in the street.

A judge told John Lindsay, 24, he had carried out a “disgraceful episode of violence” which resulted in the death of 62-year-old Neil Duffy.

Mr Duffy died in agony four days after the attack near his Niddrie home on January 7 last year. He had been initially discharged from hospital after doctors failed to spot an internal injury.

Lindsay, of Niddrie Marischal Crescent, was originally accused of murder but was convicted of culpable homicide following a trial last month.

He leapt from his black 4×4 Mitsubishi and punched and kicked Mr Duffy after claiming the victim had “stuck his fingers up”. There had been previous trouble between the two families, though Lindsay insisted that he only wanted to talk to Mr Duffy and was acting in self-defence.

The trial heard that police took Mr Duffy to hospital, where he was checked over and sent home. Mr Duffy’s worried family took him back to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary that evening and he was given painkillers and sent home.

The court was told that casualty doctors found a broken rib but did not realise Mr Duffy’s spleen had ruptured - the type of injury associated with road crash victims.

By the time Mr Duffy, of Niddrie Marischal Grove, got back to the ERI, he was dying from massive internal bleeding and medics were unable to save him.

Sentencing Lindsay today, Lord Uist told Lindsay: “This was a disgraceful episode of violence.”

He said Lindsay had two previous convictions for assault and it was of concern that one was for an attack on the same victim when he was ordered to pay compensation and do community service.

The security guard, who stood 5ft 8in tall and weighed 14 stone, claimed during his trial he was acting in self-defence against 5ft 3in, short-sighted Mr Duffy.

He did not give evidence but the jury was shown a video of detectives questioning him as they investigated the death.

Lindsay said he was driving to his mother’s home and added: “As I got to the end of my street, Neil Duffy stuck his fingers up and started laughing.”

Lindsay claimed he only wanted to talk to Mr Duffy and shake his hand, but alleged that the older man grabbed his jumper. The pair fell and there was a scuffle.

He told police: “I am not proud of what I did. I am not proud of what happened.”

Defence counsel Frances McMenamin QC said there had been previous ill-feeling between the two families who had always lived near to each other.

She said Lindsay’s father had made an attempt at a reconciliation. She said: “It was he who had advised his son to turn the other cheek and to try to make peace with the Duffy family.”

She said that when Lindsay got out of his car he went to shake hands with the older man.

“From the very outset he had regretted emerging from his car. He has expressed sympathy for the family of Mr Duffy,” she said. “The death of this man is something with which he is going to have to live for the rest of his life,” said Miss McMenamin.

Lindsay was convicted of the killing on a majority verdict of the jury.

Mr Duffy’s daughter Debbie Betts, 35, said: “My dad was a character, very happy-go-lucky. The main centre of his life was his family. He would do anything for his three grandchildren.”

The comedian Paul Whitehouse today told a court he had no knowledge of his co-star Chris Langham using child pornography as research for a drama series the pair had been writing.

The Fast Show star co-wrote and starred alongside Mr Langham in the BBC drama Help, in which he played different patients seen by a psychiatrist played by Mr Langham.

Mr Langham’s defence counsel has claimed the actor downloaded child pornography images for research purposes while writing Help.

At the Maidstone Crown Court today, prosecutor Richard Barraclough QC asked Mr Whitehouse: “Did Mr Langham ever discuss with you that he was undertaking any research for the shows?”

“Not to my knowledge, no,” Mr Whitehouse replied.

Langham, 58, denies 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child between September and November 2005.

He also denies indecent assault and a serious sexual offence on a girl under 18.

The court has previously heard that his alleged victim, who is now 25 years old, claims Mr Langham took her virginity in a London hotel room when she was 14.

Yesterday, a police computer expert described how he found graphic child pornography videos on a laptop recovered from the home of the Bafta-winning actor.

Christopher Crute, a forensic computer analyst for Kent police, said file names made reference to children as young as seven and some included the words Lolita, incest, rape, whore and hussy. The files had been downloaded from the internet to an Apple laptop computer on November 28, 2005 at about 11pm, Mr Crute told the court.

Mr Langham’s laptop was recovered, along with a desktop computer and an external disk drive, at his home in Golford, near Cranbrook, Kent. The hearing continues.