Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#11

Post by hedora »

dschuler wrote: post #9
rhino369 wrote: post #5

Extending copyright long after the life of an artist is bad economics. Because of the value of future money any revenue from future sales 30+ is essentially worthless now. So it doesn’t induce people to create more works of art and entertainment.

Is that if the price is constant over that time? Couldn't you just price the product to reflect roughly constant value, giving you linear return over time?

Yes. A reasonable rate of real return plus inflation is 7%.

1.07^144 is 17,000.

So, if the album costs $10 in 2018 dollars, it should cost $170,000 at expiration.

Figuring in inflation and conservative returns give 5% per year, so 1125x markup. The album would only be $11,250 in 2018 dollars at term expiration.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#12

Post by colordrops »

test6554 wrote: post #3

Here's the EFF link to contact your senator: https://act.eff.org/action/stop-another-expansion-of-copyrig... If you do so, be brief, polite, and state your position, for or against as well as the strength of your position (strongly against, etc.). The staffer will simply aggregate everyone's for/against positions. Verbal abuse or extra emotion is not helpful.

I agree that it's not helpful. I do think the verbal abuse and anger comes from the helplessness people feel since they know that these senators are greedy sociopaths that already know bills like this are bad and won't take your voice into consideration.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#13

Post by rayiner »

JackCh wrote: post #6

> Music Modernization Act I don't know if/how it could legally be done, but I'd love to see "cute" names for laws barred from use in Congress. Refer to them all by number not brand names dreamed up by marketing professionals to make the proposed law seem unassailable ( "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" aka USA PATRIOT Act).

The focus of the act is actually on modernizing licensing for streaming: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/congress-is-giving-m....

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#14

Post by pavpanchekha »

dschuler wrote: post #9
rhino369 wrote: post #5

Extending copyright long after the life of an artist is bad economics. Because of the value of future money any revenue from future sales 30+ is essentially worthless now. So it doesn’t induce people to create more works of art and entertainment.

Is that if the price is constant over that time? Couldn't you just price the product to reflect roughly constant value, giving you linear return over time?

Generally you imagine that future money decreases in value (in real terms). For example, you need to at least beat inflation-protected bonds! So in order to get constant real terms over the life of a piece of art, the actual price to consume has to increase exponentially over time. But in fact we get the sense that most art drops in consumer value over time (how many times have you listened to Gangnam Style in the last month?) so exponentially increasing price would not bring linear return.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#15

Post by barrkel »

rayiner wrote: post #8
Clubber wrote: post #2

It's funny that the senator's party's platform is based around little to no government regulation and healthy capitalistic competition. Here he is granting an artificial monopoly for 7 generations. I'll bet his hands were well greased. Gotta love corrupt America.

Copyright is about the least artificial monopoly that exists. An artificial monopoly is the government sending men with guns to keep bigger stronger men than me off my land. It's a chunk of dirt that existed millions of years before I was born and will continue to exist millions of years after I'm dead, but the government allows me to call it "mine." That's as artificial as it gets, but we call it "natural rights." A…

I don't accept that for a moment. Monopoly over land predates humans, as any observation of territorial creatures will let you know.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#16

Post by thomastjeffery »

rayiner wrote: post #8
Clubber wrote: post #2

It's funny that the senator's party's platform is based around little to no government regulation and healthy capitalistic competition. Here he is granting an artificial monopoly for 7 generations. I'll bet his hands were well greased. Gotta love corrupt America.

Copyright is about the least artificial monopoly that exists. An artificial monopoly is the government sending men with guns to keep bigger stronger men than me off my land. It's a chunk of dirt that existed millions of years before I was born and will continue to exist millions of years after I'm dead, but the government allows me to call it "mine." That's as artificial as it gets, but we call it "natural rights." A…

One is a monopoly on a physical object, the other is a monopoly on an idea.

Ideas are far more abstract.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#17

Post by dsr_ »

dschuler wrote: post #9
rhino369 wrote: post #5

Extending copyright long after the life of an artist is bad economics. Because of the value of future money any revenue from future sales 30+ is essentially worthless now. So it doesn’t induce people to create more works of art and entertainment.

Is that if the price is constant over that time? Couldn't you just price the product to reflect roughly constant value, giving you linear return over time?

Only if demand is relatively constant.

Nothing is less constant than the demand for entertainment, and that's reflected in current pricing.

A new blockbuster movie costs $15 in 3D, $12 in 2D.

A month later it costs $6 at the second-run theater.

Three months later it costs $20 on Blu-Ray for as many times as you want to watch it.

A year later it's included in your HBO subscription.

A year after that you can buy the disc for $10.

Ten years later you can buy the whole series for $30.

Forty years later it gets shown as 3AM filler on a cable network you don't pay for separately.

144 years later there are film scholars who have heard of it.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#18

Post by Strang »

rayiner wrote: post #8
Clubber wrote: post #2

It's funny that the senator's party's platform is based around little to no government regulation and healthy capitalistic competition. Here he is granting an artificial monopoly for 7 generations. I'll bet his hands were well greased. Gotta love corrupt America.

Copyright is about the least artificial monopoly that exists. An artificial monopoly is the government sending men with guns to keep bigger stronger men than me off my land. It's a chunk of dirt that existed millions of years before I was born and will continue to exist millions of years after I'm dead, but the government allows me to call it "mine." That's as artificial as it gets, but we call it "natural rights." A…

That's a very unconventional view. I'd argue that as presented it is based on an over-simplification of copyright. Specifically, "something that didn't exist before the person who created it" and "everyone can have as much of it as they want so long as they're willing to create their own" do not seem to accurately describe copyright law to me.

Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years

#19

Post by rayiner »

barrkel wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is about the least artificial monopoly that exists. An artificial monopoly is the government sending men with guns to keep bigger stronger men than me off my land. It's a chunk of dirt that existed millions of years before I was born and will continue to exist millions of years after I'm dead, but the government allows me to call it "mine." That's as artificial as it gets, but we call it "natural rights." A…

I don't accept that for a moment. Monopoly over land predates humans, as any observation of territorial creatures will let you know.

Territorial creatures have possession, not property, which is completely different. Bashing someone's head in and taking their property is natural right. Having the State send men with guns in response to that action is a highly artificial deprivation of that natural right.
Post reply on HN