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

91–100 of 132 posts

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

#91

Post by saalweachter »

lainga wrote: post #48
RankingMember wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Mu$1c __ModERNizAtion[1] /-\ct \x00 please find attached as per usual, regards\n Dr. Mr. Orrin Hatch of 2018 [1] various characters replaced with their equivalents from the Cyrillic codepage

The User Input Santization'); DROP TABLE users;-- Act of 2023.

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

#92

Post by cvwright »

ModernMech wrote: post #47
andrei_says_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Last year, the senate called their bill that would strip millions of healthcare the "Better Care Reconciliation Act"

> strip millions of healthcare

That's a funny way to say "stop forcing people to buy healthcare".

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

#93

Post by tomc1985 »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: 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…

Recordings won't ever enter the public domain, because when this is up for renewal in 2067 it will get extended again.

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

#94

Post by snowwrestler »

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 marginal return on this is probably a lot lower than you would think. Very few people ever know the names of the laws that are passed, and when the names are publicized, it is to mock them at least as often as it is to somehow fool people.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. do not follow what Congress is doing. They follow what media sources say Congress is doing. And media sources tend to focus on what bills will do.

I would argue that legislation names just do not matter. Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are among well-known government progams whose names were not even in the titles of their enacting legislation.

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

#95

Post by snowwrestler »

gnode wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's unconventional. Almost nobody outside certain circles cares about the "public domain." It's a romantic idea that has little relevance. And why do you think that description of copyright law is inaccurate? Copyright protects concrete expression, not abstract ideas, and independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement. How many sci-fi books are basically identical and rehash the same trope…

> It's only infringement if you actually copy someone else's work. This is inaccurate. Copyright has been extended to cover fictional characters for instance. Consider that at the copyright term of 144 years proposed, the character of Count Dracula would still be under copyright, and not freely usable for artistic works.

> Copyright has been extended to cover fictional characters for instance.

Can you provide an example?

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

#96

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

snowwrestler wrote: post #94
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 marginal return on this is probably a lot lower than you would think. Very few people ever know the names of the laws that are passed, and when the names are publicized, it is to mock them at least as often as it is to somehow fool people. The vast majority of people in the U.S. do not follow what Congress is doing. They follow what media sources say Congress is doing. And media sources tend to focus on what bill…

As a counter argument, I think the PATRIOT act might have not gotten as much popular support had it born a name more accurate to what the bill actually covered.

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

#97

Post by TheCoelacanth »

ModernMech wrote: post #34
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.

> 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…

Yet promoting artists to create art is the only legitimate ground on which the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create copyright laws.

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

#98

Post by InitialLastName »

pmyteh wrote: post #84
dragonwriter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

The US used to work that way, but it appears that the norms of liberal democracy were a casualty of our advancing partisanship over the last ~9 presidential administrations.

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

#99

Post by InitialLastName »

sli wrote: post #90
jjoonathan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bil…

> Predictably, the bill was sold pretty heavily as a pro-solar bill meant to make solar more competitive.

You can make something "more competitive" in two ways; kneecapping a leading industry does just as much "making competitive" as lifting up a tailing industry.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

ModernMech wrote: post #47
andrei_says_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Last year, the senate called their bill that would strip millions of healthcare the "Better Care Reconciliation Act"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN