Live data from Hacker News

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

boingboing.net

31–40 of 132 posts

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

#31
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).

You need a Cut Undemocratic Naming Titles bill

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

#32
post #31
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).

You need a Cut Undemocratic Naming Titles bill

Uncalled for.

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

#34
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.

> So it doesn’t induce people to create more works of art and entertainment.

Promoting artists to create art has long been sidelined as a goal of copyright. Now, copyright is there to make sure already copy written works are profitable forever. I mean think about it. All they have to do is take old music and movies and repackage it as new media. Disney movies from the 30s can be remade today with CGI. Pop music from the 80s can be remixed in 2040, and a whole new generation of people will buy it up, without any artists involved. Copyright has lost its purpose.

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

#35
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).

> 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.

It can't even in principal be done in a binding way in mere statute, since newer law wins in case of a conflict, and even were it done by Constitutional Amendment, it would be hard to give it teeth.

Plus, it's plenty useful to have memorable named for laws, rather having to remember bill/session numbers (or, worse, the weird practice in California and some other places where laws, even when they actually have friendly names, are frequently referred to by bill numbers without session numbers, even long after adoption, when such identifiers are decidedly non-unique.)

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

#36
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).

This would be a great way to prevent polititians from framing the bills.

For more on framing, see George Lakoff’s lecture on moral politics — reveals the way political language uses metaphors and How framing a debate ensures its outcome.

Repeating the frame reinforces the intended meaning. Merely Using the name of the bill defines its outcome.

“Tax Relief” - no one wants to fight a “relief” effort. Tax cuts for the rich would be the correct name.

“Clear sky initiative” is the name of a clear cutting bill.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

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

#37
The main motivation for extending copyright 'till the cows come home is most likely to keep material from becoming public domain and thereby from making sure it doesn't compete with the latest thrash the industry is producing. If their latest auto-tuned plastic one-hit wonder had to compete against a wealth of free-as-in-beer music the risk would be for the latter to become popular among the cool kids. No free music means no risk of that happening.

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

#38
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The important thing here is that primarily good MMA has been bundled with the CLASSICS Act. From the EFF commentary: "The CLASSICS Act gives nothing back to the public. It doesn’t increase access to pre-1972 recordings, which are already played regularly on Internet radio. And it doesn’t let the public use these recordings without permission any sooner. While some recording artists and their heirs will receive money…

There has got to be a way of preventing "bundling". Bundling unrelated laws together is the cause of so much strife. Tacking shitty laws onto good ones, sneaking in some obscure clause that gives some senator a tax break that nobody noticed or they ignore because they want the rest of the bill, a highly favorable bi-partisan bill turned into a partisan issue because a clause that furthers the interests of the party that introduced it, and inane strawman accusations that follow because now it's easy to paint someone as the bad guy that is trying to undermine this universally good bill (nevermind that their holdup is this one completely unrelated clause). The whole quid-pro-quo political economy exists because this is possible (I vote for your bill with your pet clause, and you vote for mine.)

A big part of the deterioration of current state of political discourse in the US could be attributed to this one issue. I have no conception of how such a limit on the content of bills could be defined and enforced while maintaining the balance of power, but the current system is insanity.

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

#39
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).

I agree completely. I'd like to see some sort of "No More Orwellian Names" act. The titles would be obtained using some kind of algorithm run on the bill text. But then, lawmakers would screw with the text until the algorithm returned the title they wanted. D'oh...keeping people from working around regulations is difficult.
Post reply on HN