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

81–90 of 132 posts

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

#81

Post by jjoonathan »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #30
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 Orwell Act: Proposed legislation names shall henceforth be limited to the following verbs and adjectives: verbs: prevent, promote adjectives: good, ungood Edit: More seriously, laws should be named with the same rules that apply to good commit messages, concisely describing the change being made. Or maybe they're more like pull requests... point is, you should be able to go down the list of them and get a good fe…

You can already do that: just assume a bill does the opposite of what it says it does.

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

#82

Post by pjc50 »

hristov wrote: post #10

They say that in ancient roman times during a triumph there would be a slave that follows the triumphant general whispering to him "remember you are mortal". They should have a congressional page follow Orin Hatch whispering in his ear "remember you are not a singer songwriter, your songs all suck, and nobody would ever listen to them if you were not a senator."

I very much doubt it's anything to do with musical aspirations and more to do with campaign contributions.

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

#83

Post by ScottBurson »

btown wrote: post #42

The linked Lawrence Lessig op-ed [0] makes reference to a Supreme Court case he argued, where the 70-year version of this law was upheld. Luckily, unlike the sound recordings in question, Supreme Court oral arguments are available to posterity unencumbered, under a legal framework that encourages small, innovative providers like oyez.org to deliver them to the public. Here's the argument in question: https://www.oyez…

Here's what the Constitution says: Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

So, what is a "limited" time? The current trend seems to be toward considering any mathematically finite number of years to be "limited". A hundred, a thousand, a million, a billion, a googol (10 ^ 100), a googolplex (10 ^ 10 ^ 100) — these are all finite numbers.

I would argue that the Constitution was written by and for human beings, and therefore "limited" means "limited on a human timescale", and therefore the upper limit should be about half a mean human lifetime. Certainly, if a typical human can be born after a copyright is established, and live their life and die before it terminates, in their experience that's effectively an unlimited duration.

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

#84

Post by pmyteh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #35
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).

> 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 numb…

This is a great example of the power of norms and conventions. As sibling says, Erskine May in the UK bans tendentious titles. It's not a statutory restriction and could be easily overturned by the House of Commons if it wanted. But no government has had the HoC do that, partly through inertia and partly because that government would then face partisan bill titles when next in opposition. So the convention endures.

The British constitution is, in some ways, built on conventions like this. It changes the calculus from legal to normative, and allows a sustainable banning of cute names even though, as you say, it can't be done in a binding way even in principle.

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

#85

Post by HarryHirsch »

dsr_ wrote: post #17
dschuler wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

Only if demand is relatively constant

The demand for classic opera recordings is constant. Year after year people will buy the 1966 recording of Tristan & Isolde at the Bayreuther Festspiele with Wolfgang Windgassen singing Tristan. These are reliable moneyspinners for the record companies, you'd expect to see initiatives to extend copyright.

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

#86

Post by gnode »

ModernMech wrote: post #49
gnode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's sensible to refer to all ownership of land as monopolistic. In most cases land is fungible. There are many landowners in my town of plots of land which are largely interchangeable. Saying someone has a monopoly on their specific plot of land is about as relevant as saying someone has a monopoly on a specific cheeseburger. If one party were to own all the land in a particular region, like a feudal l…

> In most cases land is fungible. Err, there's a reason the first three rules of real estate are 1. location 2. location 3. location The key thing about land is that it's unique, there is no other place on the entire planet identical to the place you're standing. There may be similar places, and that may be fine enough for some people. But plenty of wars have been fought over a particular piece of land. Just ask the…

I was referring to a local basis. I.e. in most cases, plots of land of equal size on a given street are of similar value for similar purposes. My point is that people don't typically monopolise land to the extent that a prospective land buyer has one potential current owner they could deal with. Of course there are always exceptional cases where this breaks down.

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

#87

Post by ScottBurson »

icebraining wrote: post #68

Counterpoint: No, the CLASSICS Act is not a “term extension” http://www.copyhype.com/2018/05/no-the-classics-act-is-not-a... I'm hardly a fan of copyright, but the arguments that this is not actually an extension seem sound.

Hmm. The argument seems to be that pre-1972 sound recordings (only recordings, not compositions) enjoyed protection under a patchwork of state laws and aspects of common law, protection that was arguably unlimited. (It's not clear to me whether these are technically considered copyright protections; I guess not.) Therefore, protecting artists' right to receive royalties from streaming, as long as the performance is still under copyright, isn't technically an extension; in fact the 2067 cutoff could be considered a new limitation.

So I guess my take on this is that I still feel that copyright terms (95 years or longer, depending on certain circumstances [0]) are too long, and I can see that this bill might technically not be making the problem worse.

[0] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

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

#88

Post by Dylan16807 »

ModernMech wrote: post #49
gnode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's sensible to refer to all ownership of land as monopolistic. In most cases land is fungible. There are many landowners in my town of plots of land which are largely interchangeable. Saying someone has a monopoly on their specific plot of land is about as relevant as saying someone has a monopoly on a specific cheeseburger. If one party were to own all the land in a particular region, like a feudal l…

> In most cases land is fungible. Err, there's a reason the first three rules of real estate are 1. location 2. location 3. location The key thing about land is that it's unique, there is no other place on the entire planet identical to the place you're standing. There may be similar places, and that may be fine enough for some people. But plenty of wars have been fought over a particular piece of land. Just ask the…

Are the Palestinians being offered similar land? That fight seems pretty all or nothing.

But more importantly, very few bits of land are all that special. Location, location, location means that if a business got its pick of nearby plots, most would happily switch, and reap the benefits!

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

#89

Post by kwhitefoot »

It's there any point in fighting this sort of thing anymore? Shouldn't 'we' just make sure digital copies are available somewhere; like scihub does for scientific papers? It seems to be impossible to reason with the politicians everywhre on this subject, not just in the US, so perhaps direct action is all that is left.

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

#90

Post by sli »

jjoonathan wrote: post #81
WiseWeasel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Orwell Act: Proposed legislation names shall henceforth be limited to the following verbs and adjectives: verbs: prevent, promote adjectives: good, ungood Edit: More seriously, laws should be named with the same rules that apply to good commit messages, concisely describing the change being made. Or maybe they're more like pull requests... point is, you should be able to go down the list of them and get a good fe…

You can already do that: just assume a bill does the opposite of what it says it does.

Oftentimes, it even does the opposite of what the given description says.

For example, there was a solar law on the ballot in Florida in 2016 that was written by oil and gas companies, that basically would have created a charge just for having solar panels. The new cost was to simply subsidize energy companies losing revenue from people moving to solar.

Predictably, the bill was sold pretty heavily as a pro-solar bill meant to make solar more competitive. Much in the same way anti-NN is often sold as a method of making it easier for smaller ISPs to compete with the giga-ISPs.

The word "wytai" from the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows comes to mind when I think about how much of the US political process is based almost entirely on deception and tricking people into voting your way.

Post reply on HN