21–30 of 48 posts
https://archive.is/wE4qo Viva la GDPR...
Don't blame the GDPR (read: basic human rights to privacy) for the LA Times not respecting them.
HN should totally have a bot for this kind of links, and automatically add the archive link in a comment.
> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing pre-1972 should have any copyright at all at this point, Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. 28 years is the MAXIMUM anything should be copyrighted for, 14 years if the cop…
greatest travesties? It's just money.
> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing pre-1972 should have any copyright at all at this point, Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. 28 years is the MAXIMUM anything should be copyrighted for, 14 years if the cop…
One could argue if you made something, you're entitled to the rights. If a painter makes a painting, he'll be able to pass those down to his children. But if a musician makes a song, it'll end up in the public domain after X years.
Literature is closer to music in this aspect, as neither has any physical property. Copyright on both is limited.
> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing pre-1972 should have any copyright at all at this point, Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. 28 years is the MAXIMUM anything should be copyrighted for, 14 years if the cop…
One could argue if you made something, you're entitled to the rights. If a painter makes a painting, he'll be able to pass those down to his children. But if a musician makes a song, it'll end up in the public domain after X years.
"CCR's catalogue of songs has frequently been used or referenced in popular culture, partly because John Fogerty "long ago signed away legal control of his old recordings to Creedence's record label, Fantasy Records." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creedence_Clearwater_Revival#L...
> But if a musician makes a song, it'll end up in the public domain after X years.
I WISH!!!!! I blame Mickey Mouse for that. Copy Right is different and is in perpetual renewal since 1976. This is why Sherlock Holmes is locked into only the first half of his timeline since the second half is still under copyright protection and owned by the family.
The rights to humanity far exceeds the locking up of works for people to use as leverage to gain money on 0.01% of the works that are of any monetary value. I have always proposed that if you want to extend your copyright you are charged a fee of say $10,000 that way 99.9% of the items become Public Domain.
> If a painter makes a painting, he'll be able to pass those down to his children.
What painter doesn't sell his work? Those painting rarely ever stay in possession of artist.
EDITED for my poor spelling
Earlier quoted context omitted.
greatest travesties? It's just money.
Money runs your entire life. Good luck living without money
But when people say "it's just money", I believe the real objection they have is "it's disproportionally screwing other people for sake of personal gains". I.e. antisocial behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the more obscure stuff does end up lost entirely. This is more of a problem with digital formats, especially games, where copying is intrinsic to preservation. The arcade machines with self-wiping "DRM" systems are a particularly strong example. Most of the old Doctor Who episodes that have been recovered have been from copies that were not supposed to have existed.
Actually those old Doctor Who episode were recorded perfectly legally. UK Copyright legislation has an exemption for recording off-air broadcasts for personal use for the purpose of timeshifting. It doesn't say how long you are allowed to shift the time.
Doctor Who is lucky in that there was a nice size fanbase from the get-go. Some not so popular programs from that era are indeed gone forever. (An example I can think of offhand is the 1960s soap opera United! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United! -- reportedly all 147 episodes of that program were wiped.)
As far as this act goes, my initial impression is that standardizing a mechanism for mechanical royalties is probably a good thing overall, same with the added protection for those on the production side. But the CLASSICS act portion strikes me as very rent-seeking in nature, I'm not a fan of infinite copyright economically.
Notably missing from the list are musicians themselves (who are the "groups representing them"?) and consumers.
Is this actually a good thing? Will it lead to greater income for the majority of musicians (as opposed to the top 0.1%?). Will it end up raising prices on Spotify or making it harder for new streaming competitors to enter the market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could argue if you made something, you're entitled to the rights. If a painter makes a painting, he'll be able to pass those down to his children. But if a musician makes a song, it'll end up in the public domain after X years.
The intellectual rights on the painting (can anyone reproduce it, in say, print, without the rightholder's agreement) are quite separate from the property rights on the physical embodiment of the painting. Literature is closer to music in this aspect, as neither has any physical property. Copyright on both is limited.
> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing pre-1972 should have any copyright at all at this point, Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. 28 years is the MAXIMUM anything should be copyrighted for, 14 years if the cop…
Where does this seemingly arbitrary number of 14 years come from?