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

All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

publicdomainreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 233 posts

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#111

Post by t-writescode »

elzbardico wrote: post #104
grishka wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world, copyright should last for maybe two or three years. It would still mostly fulfill its purpose to allow the creator to earn money, but would severely curtail the abuse potential. In an even more ideal world, copyright shouldn't be transferable.

It is complicated. For very popular artists yes, their music is commercially short-lived and most of the returns will come in the first six months. But for the more obscure composers and performers the reality is completely different.

It wouldn't. If a music studio needs to wait 4 years to not have to pay any royalties at all, then the song would be recorded (copyright created) and the music groups would just wait 4 years and then start playing it on radio stations.

It needs to be something like 12 + 12 or 20 + 20, or even 20 + infinitely continuable for a gradually increasing cost. It still has the potential issue of waiting out that 24 to 40 years; but companies are less likely to do that, when a few years is basically nothing.

It's been 2 years since covid started, for example.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#112

Post by asdff »

chrisco255 wrote: post #81
Hokusai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. The current goal of copyright is to let companies own the culture you grew with. All the movies, music, books and games that defined who you are will not enter the public domain until you are dead or very old. Companies like Disney were founded on well known stories. They will not allow anybody else too accomplish the same.

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

Disney does not own the stories but it owns its films and all associated IP. If you sell a Cinderella T shirt that looks like their Cinderella, you will probably get something in writing from a lawyer before long.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#113

Post by mywittyname »

grishka wrote: post #101
marcodiego wrote: post #2

99 years to enter public domain... I don't think this is fair.

In an ideal world, copyright should last for maybe two or three years. It would still mostly fulfill its purpose to allow the creator to earn money, but would severely curtail the abuse potential. In an even more ideal world, copyright shouldn't be transferable.

Three years is probably too short, but certainly something less than 30 years. That gives people plenty of time to enjoy the profits from their work (basically their entire adult lives) while allowing it into the public domain while it is still somewhat useful.

I don't think the system would function without transferable copyrights. A movie might have 10,000 people who've contributed to it. Managing the copyrights without some kind of legal agreement would be a nightmare. I get the spirit of the comment (to prevent generations of people from owning and profiting from the works of people they never knew), but eliminating copyright transfership probably doesn't solve that.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#114

Post by ddingus »

IiydAbITMvJkqKf wrote: post #90
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if we're going to time limit ownership rights to intellectual property we should time limit ownership rights to everything - including land, buildings, shares and stocks, bonds, art collections, all of it. Except maybe trivial items like home furnishings and portable tools. I've yet to hear any credible argument - one that doesn't reduce to entitlement and wishful thinking - for distinguishing between these a…

There's literally no difference between copying and stealing.

See my comment up thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29475492

There are significant differences!

The primary one being for theft to be a part of the discussion there must also be someone who is denied property.

A copy does not deny anyone property. And the word for that is infringement.

(whether it's OK to do is another discussion, and an important one that I'm not speaking to right now, just the basic difference)

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#115

Post by grishka »

t-writescode wrote: post #107
grishka wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world, copyright should last for maybe two or three years. It would still mostly fulfill its purpose to allow the creator to earn money, but would severely curtail the abuse potential. In an even more ideal world, copyright shouldn't be transferable.

2-3 years is no time at all. Someone could hand a movie studio a script in hopes of it being made a movie, the movie studio could wait 4 years, and then make the movie, with no harm to them whatsoever.

Huh. A movie studio. Yes, my proposal also has a nice side effect of filtering out those who are in it for the money, not self-expression. The world would become a better place if there were no "entertainment industry".

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#116

Post by kube-system »

grishka wrote: post #101
marcodiego wrote: post #2

99 years to enter public domain... I don't think this is fair.

In an ideal world, copyright should last for maybe two or three years. It would still mostly fulfill its purpose to allow the creator to earn money, but would severely curtail the abuse potential. In an even more ideal world, copyright shouldn't be transferable.

Three years is too short. The people who need these protections the most are not marketing powerhouses that can achieve instant successes.

I feel like a two or three year copyright could be even worse that current state — large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work.

“Nice album kid, bet it’ll sell great 3 years from now”

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#117

Post by grishka »

t-writescode wrote: post #111
elzbardico wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is complicated. For very popular artists yes, their music is commercially short-lived and most of the returns will come in the first six months. But for the more obscure composers and performers the reality is completely different.

It wouldn't. If a music studio needs to wait 4 years to not have to pay any royalties at all, then the song would be recorded (copyright created) and the music groups would just wait 4 years and then start playing it on radio stations. It needs to be something like 12 + 12 or 20 + 20, or even 20 + infinitely continuable for a gradually increasing cost. It still has the potential issue of waiting out that 24 to 40 yea…

Companies will go bankrupt. Their business models will break down. Yes. That's intended. There's no need for these middlemen in the age of the internet.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#118

Post by grishka »

kube-system wrote: post #116
grishka wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world, copyright should last for maybe two or three years. It would still mostly fulfill its purpose to allow the creator to earn money, but would severely curtail the abuse potential. In an even more ideal world, copyright shouldn't be transferable.

Three years is too short. The people who need these protections the most are not marketing powerhouses that can achieve instant successes. I feel like a two or three year copyright could be even worse that current state — large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work. “Nice album kid, bet it’ll sell great 3 years from now”

> large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work

But it's public domain. You can't exactly "steal" something that already belongs to everyone, including you.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#119

Post by dahart »

criddell wrote: post #85
dahart wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we grant a monopoly to a creator for a limited term to incentivize new work That’s a nice goal, but not entirely accurate. Copyright is intended to protect individual works of authorship, and allow the author to leverage their work, even when they only produce a single work. > How often does ten year old software make the difference for a company taking off this year? It happens all the time in software companies!…

> That’s a nice goal, but not entirely accurate. I based my statement on https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai... > it should be set by considering what’s long enough to recoup an investment and when it’s fair for the copiers to come take your work and use it for their own financial gains I don't think we disagree really. I said the goal was to maximize overall benefit to society and I think yo…

> Nobody will know if 10 years is too short until the issue is studied.

I disagree. Plenty of people already know 10 years is too short, and it doesn’t take a study to show it. Lots of businesses take longer than that to get established, even the very fastest-moving fastest-distributing businesses like software startups.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#120

Post by lapetitejort »

chrisco255 wrote: post #81
Hokusai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. The current goal of copyright is to let companies own the culture you grew with. All the movies, music, books and games that defined who you are will not enter the public domain until you are dead or very old. Companies like Disney were founded on well known stories. They will not allow anybody else too accomplish the same.

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

> those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

Those stories were retelling of stories which were retelling of stories which were... Disney made it law that no one is allowed to retell their stories but them. Approaching or alluding to their retelling can carry stiff penalties. It's antithetical to a universal human institution that has existed since before recorded history.

Post reply on HN