I'm sure this is bill sponsored by some of the finest Congressmen money can buy.
Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
111–120 of 132 posts
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#112Earlier 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 only covers coming someone else’s fictional character. It’s not copyright infringement if you happen to come up with a character that resembles Hermione or whatever.
As to the Dracula example: why should you be able to use the fruits of someone else’s labor for free? There is literally an infinite amount of independent things you can create without using other people’s work.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#113> 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).
How about having a mechanism to allow the opposition to vote on a secondary name which will be included alongside the primary name in official correspondence? Yes, it will degrade into "Bill to Save America / Bill to Destroy America" most of the time, but that's the point: it makes the absurdity easy to spot and difficult to ignore.
This is actually an amazing idea.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#114Earlier 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…
One is a monopoly on a physical object, the other is a monopoly on an idea. Ideas are far more abstract .
Copyright is a monopoly on a specific creative work, not an idea. It’s intangible but it’s not an idea (Microsoft Windows for example, isn’t an “idea”). It’s a product of labor, just like a house you built.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#115Earlier 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 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…
You don’t violate copyright by creating a “trivially similar” work. Maybe if you start with someone else’s work and make only trivial modifications.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#116> 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).
In the UK, at least, there are rules against this. A government bill’s short title > must describe the content of the bill in a straightforwardly factual manner. An argumentative title or a slogan is not permitted. From Erskine May, what the Financial Times calls “the bible on parliamentary procedure”. https://www.ft.com/content/05253602-ce4a-3f64-8ace-6a6f03876...
The problem is that such a bill to do the same in the US would probably violate itself with a cute name.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#117The 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…
That makes me wonder, is there already something akin to Project Gutenberg but for music rather than books? Would be interesting to browse.
I ran into this the other day: http://radio.publicdomainproject.org/
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#118> 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).
Would the patriot act be anywhere near as infamous if it was just some generic hard to remember number?
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are notable exceptions. The Bambi DVD, which was created in 1942, is listed on Amazon for $28. In 20 years, it will be $50.
Well... the Bambi film came out in 1942. You can buy the Signature Edition DVD+BR for $30, but you can also buy a 2 disc special edition for $7.49, the Anniversary Edition for $15.96, and a Blu-Ray for $14.27. We haven't reached the used market, where eBay can get you a copy for $5, most of which will go to shipping it to you.
There won't be a "used market" for media in the future, because media won't be delivered on physical substrate. The publishing interests have been working to eliminate it for years. Between DRM and streaming I think they'll manage to kill used markets.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#120Earlier 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…
> This is a great example of the power of norms and conventions.
I agree. My main point was that legislation can't be the source of the fix; if you can engineer an independently-durable change in norms first, legislation can memorialize it and reinforce it, but a momentary majority can't establish it in a way that is resistant to the next momentary majority brushing it away.