Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 321 posts

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#31

Post by yeloboy »

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist.

After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem sales spike, a celebration of now freely available music for all to enjoy would be a much better hommage.

As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their own. What the current laws create in most cases are lazy rich children who spend the rest of their lives managing the copyright legacy of their parent. That doesn't benefit society in any way. Either they work like normal people or they make their own art but they're not entitled to the copyright of their parents. If the parents don't want to leave them in poverty, they can still leave the money they earned with this copyright over the years for their children.

Also, with the minimum 50 years duration, they could still inherit the copyright if their parent dies at an early age. However, a term of life PLUS a ludicrous amount of years is a really bad idea for the cultural development of our society.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#32

Post by Piskvorrr »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #4

Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs to chain up music any longer than two decades (I'm being kinda generous, some songs are old after a few months / one to five years). I hate the state of copyrighted works. Movies can stay copyrighted for a good 40 to 50 years, anything else is crazy. Books maybe 50 years too, but again, it's just crazy and clear that the extended years of co…

Because without Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (granting many extra years of copyright), Mickey Mouse would be public domain. Simple as that - the agenda is obvious. Expect similar "extension" push as 2024 approaches.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#33

Post by mirimir »

executesorder66 wrote: post #15
mirimir wrote: post #3

There's really only one viable solution. If you want stuff to stay up, put it somewhere that won't let anyone take it down. No matter what. And isn't vulnerable to coercion. YouTube is not such a place, of course. For most purposes, torrents are good enough. Maybe BitChute. Or for sensitive stuff, sites on Tor .onion servers. Not Freenet, though, because that is a trip to jail, just waiting to happen. Edit: OK, about…

Why is uploading to Freenet illegal? And where?

Sorry, I updated with a much longer explantion about Freenet. It's not that using Freenet is illegal per se. It's that Freenet is loaded with child porn, and worse. And that investigators have tweaked Freenet software that logs content moving through all peers that they connect to. And there are databases with hashes of illicit content. So they see that your node is handling illicit content, contact your ISP to get your identity, and then SWAT you. That's how that ex cop in Philadelphia, who's still sitting in jail, after "forgetting" his FDE passphrase, got busted.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#34

Post by giancarlostoro »

chrismorgan wrote: post #29
giancarlostoro wrote: post #4

Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs to chain up music any longer than two decades (I'm being kinda generous, some songs are old after a few months / one to five years). I hate the state of copyrighted works. Movies can stay copyrighted for a good 40 to 50 years, anything else is crazy. Books maybe 50 years too, but again, it's just crazy and clear that the extended years of co…

I like the solution we came up with earlier this year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16163984 Ten years of free protection, then costing $10 × 1.5 ⁿ ⁻ ¹ for each subsequent year. Year 10 costs $0, year 20 about $380, year 30 about $22,000, year 40 about $1,300,000, year 50 almost $75,000,000—and few fifty-year-old things will be worth $75,000,000 per year and growing to retain copyright to.

Ah yes I love that, Disney keeps their rat and we all get more sane copyright.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#35

Post by richrichardsson »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #8
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs to chain up music any longer than two decades You say that but the Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson are all artists that had their heyday 30-60 years ago and are still the top selling artists. A lot of them are dead now because of varying reasons, but some are still alive and kicking and giving new performances of the…

If anything I'm more for stripping record labels of their copyright, an artist can keep their copyright till they die for all I care. Their families shouldn't depend solely on one artist's income. There's many angles to copyright, it's a complicated subject cause of it, but we need to take away all the noise of it, this legalized censorship against allegedly copyrighted works doesn't actually work is the main issue.…

> Artists from what I recall make more money selling merchandise and doing concerts

True, because every ass and his dog pirates music, thus the income from selling music is severely diminished. The amount of time it takes to produce/compose/record etc. music is not exactly trivial, and if you have to tour constantly in order to be able to pay the bills, then finding time and energy to create some new music to perform whilst on tour becomes quite problematic. Your "most artists don't care" statement is a crock of shit! Perhaps large established artists may not care so much, but if you're talking about "most artists" then they do care that income from their craft is being denied to them.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#36

Post by chrismorgan »

maaaats wrote: post #6

> “[…] thank you for contacting Google Inc. Please note that due to the large number of enquiries, e-mails received at this e-mail address support-de@google.com cannot be read and acknowledged” Google's support in a nutshell.

It’s worse than that: the phrasing is entirely deceptive and misleading. “Thank you for contacting Google”? But the remainder of the message is denying that you actually did contact Google. You tried, but you failed.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#37

Post by Jerry2 »

I used to have a Youtube channel where I posted videos of me playing the piano. I played mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff compositions. I had around 40 videos in total. Sometime around 2014, I started getting DMCA takedown notices from various companies claiming copyright. I was getting one or two per week and I contested them and things were ruled into my favor. But then it started getting harder and harder to contest them and I even lost the ability to upload. It got so bad that one day several (3 or 4, don't remember anymore) notices were filed and Google didn't rule on them fast enough.

I had to close the channel because my account was locked for one full day and I couldn't do a thing. I had too many emails inside of Gmail and didn't want to lose them so I gave up. I'm still pissed about it and how Youtube and Google run things.

I always found it interesting that under YT rules content creators have the "3 strikes and you're banned" rule hanging over their heads but those who falsely claim copyright can do so with impunity. I still remember one company that ended up falsely claiming copyright over 10+ of my videos and they did so against one or two videos per week. Nothing was ever done about them.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#38

Post by amelius »

maaaats wrote: post #6

> “[…] thank you for contacting Google Inc. Please note that due to the large number of enquiries, e-mails received at this e-mail address support-de@google.com cannot be read and acknowledged” Google's support in a nutshell.

The FTC should monitor their quality of support, and throttle Google's bandwidth accordingly.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#39

Post by jpttsn »

yeloboy wrote: post #31

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem…

A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs, for those who invest in artists. This theoretically enables larger investments that can support the artist further up front.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#40

Post by clon »

yeloboy wrote: post #31

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem…

Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes).

Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes).

I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus have inherent value.

I am not sure if the notion of private property should depend on the continued existence of the original creator. When do we start requisitioning houses for the hommage of the original owner?

Post reply on HN