As if the music industry, an industry I dearly love, isn't shit already, now congress wants to make it even worse. I don't see how they justify the current streaming deals or how they are even legal. They certainly aren't fair. It seems that congress is solely concerned with the profits of distributors and couldn't give a rat's ass about the livelihood of all the musicians who create this music. Extending copyright is just another example of how wrong congress is on this issue. At this point, I don't even know what to say. Musicians had a chance to ditch the so-called record labels, yet they seemingly decided to trade them in for even shittier deals with the likes of Spotify and Pandora. And somehow it got codified into law. It's amazing to me that there are still musicians producing music for a living. I do not see this profession lasting much longer as a viable profession, except for the most popular, biggest artists. In other words, these idiotic copyright laws that are supposed to incentivize creation have essentially ended the aspirations of most professional musicians. Ironic that it was claimed that piracy would do this. From a musician's standpoint, however, what is the difference between piracy and Spotify when both generate a revenue stream asymptotical to zero?
Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
121–130 of 132 posts
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> why should you be able to use the fruits of someone else’s labor for free?
Why not? I like the letter 'i'. Why do you get to use the letter 'i' for free when it is my favorite? Every time you use it without paying me, you deprive me of the potential profits that i could make licensing that usage. Why do you get to benefit from the heat my body gives off?
Anything that has infinite supply is going to have a low price (to free) price without artificial constraints. In this case the artificial monopoly is copyright. There is no scarcity, so gov't "regulates" and "distorts" the market to reward content creators. This is not a natural state.
I'm not against a well-balanced copyright system that actually encourages creation in exchange for a limited time monopoly.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#123Earlier 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.
Animals might have monopoly over land that they are physically standing on and protecting right this very second. But they have no concept of property: land in some other place far away from them that somehow remains theirs even if they aren't there or never intend to go there. That sort of property is solely a creation of the modern state.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#124Earlier 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…
"Important recordings from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s won’t enter the public domain until 2067."
If we're lucky. More likely, before 2067 rolls around they'll "modernize" copyright again by extending it another hundred years.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#125Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That intangibility is what I am trying to get at: If someone builds an exact copy of your house across the street, you don't lose anything. The idea that you should be allowed to prevent them from doing so is copyright.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#127> 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 first misread it as
> Music Monetization Act
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Copyright is a monopoly on a specific creative work, not an idea.
But courts — urged on by copyright owners — have extended the scope of copyright protection to nonliteral aspects such as (for example) look and feel and structure, sequence, and organization. Sometimes this is done while paying lip service to the principle that copyright doesn't protect ideas. The resulting fuzziness of the boundaries is one of the major sources of complaint.
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don't have a problem with copyright covering characters, but with the excessive copyright term. My example of Dracula is that he is regarded by most as a classical character, like Frankenstein or Scrooge, not a modern character to be licensed like a Marvel superhero. Should the works of Shakespeare be under the creative control of his distant descendants?
Re: Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Yes; Mickey Mouse is covered by copyright law, via the copyright on the original work he appeared in -- Steamboat Willie.
While the protection of the copyright of Steamboat Willie in itself is probably of no consequence to Disney, it's foundation to the licensability of Mickey Mouse is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie#Copyright_sta...