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

Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#31

Post by ryukafalz »

asaph wrote: post #30
syshum wrote: post #7

> 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…

> Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. Where does this seemingly arbitrary number of 14 years come from?

It was the original copyright term in the United States, from the Copyright Act of 1790: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#32

Post by harshreality »

tinkerteller wrote: post #3

Pretty bad journalism. The article is full of what other people think of this act without ever revealing what really this new act does!

It modernizes music. Why are you being such a buzzkill?! /s

The main thing that seems clear is that it streamlines licensing somewhat.

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#34

Post by sp332 »

moviuro wrote: post #21
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame the GDPR (read: basic human rights to privacy) for the LA Times not respecting them.

I really don't blame the GDPR, I'm glad LA Times publicly acknowledges that they don't respect their readers. HN should totally have a bot for this kind of links, and automatically add the archive link in a comment.

Does hitting the "web" link underneath the URL help in this case? You could pull the Google cache I think.

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#35

Post by triangleman »

petercooper wrote: post #20
charlesdm wrote: post #17

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 physical vs non-physical aspect makes it more complex, but I think the situation is ultimately the same..(?) A painter like a musician can keep and pass down a physical representation of the original image (a canvas vs a gold disc/master) but the rights to the image/song itself can enter public domain and be reproduced (a print vs an MP3). It's kinda interesting to me that in art the physical object is revered ab…

But they do pay the original artist to come to their show and play their original hits. Meanwhile other people pay less to see a cover band.

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#36

Post by justinpombrio »

charlesdm wrote: post #17
syshum wrote: post #7

> 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.

The painting itself. But the right to reproduce the painting is covered by copyright, and ends up in the public domain 70 years after the painter's death, same as everything else. (Such a long time! It was originally 14 years with an optional 14 year extension period.)

https://www.arsny.com/copyright-basics/

So a (freelance) painter gets two things: the physical piece of art, and the right to reproduce it. A musician can get concert revenue, plus the rights to reproduce their music. I don't have a good sense about how the values of these things compare.

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#37

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

larkeith wrote: post #9

Why is it I'm so dubious that anything "hailed by the Music Industry" will prove beneficial for anyone except the corporations who own the copyrights?

You can bet that if no record labels are speaking out against this law that it directly benefits them in some way.

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#38

Post by weliketocode »

branksy wrote: post #28

From Wikipedia: The bills in both House and Senate had bipartisan support, as well as strong support from numerous music industry groups representing musicians, producers, and publishers, as well as from digital streaming media services and related industry groups. Notably missing from the list are musicians themselves (who are the "groups representing them"?) and consumers. Is this actually a good thing? Will it lea…

I have the same concerns.

I'm especially suspicious of anything with seemingly unanimous support.

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#39

Post by creaghpatr »

branksy wrote: post #28

From Wikipedia: The bills in both House and Senate had bipartisan support, as well as strong support from numerous music industry groups representing musicians, producers, and publishers, as well as from digital streaming media services and related industry groups. Notably missing from the list are musicians themselves (who are the "groups representing them"?) and consumers. Is this actually a good thing? Will it lea…

>Intended to update music copyright law for the digital era, H.R. 1551 (formally the “Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act”) accomplishes three key things: making sure songwriters and artists receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972; allocating royalties for music producers; and updating licensing and royalty rules for streaming services to pay rights-holders in a more streamlined fashion, via a new, independent entity. Under the act, many music creators will have a more reliable way of collecting the money that they’re due.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/trump-signs-mu...

Re: Music industry hails passage of the Music Modernization Act

#40

Post by readbeard »

syshum wrote: post #7

> 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…

While you may be right, 14 and 28 years (with extension) are currently unrealistic goals due to international obligations [0]. However, I believe returning to the terms of the 1976 act (75 years or life plus 50 years) would be imminently achievable with good political maneuvering.

Thinking this was a hot-button issue on HN, I submitted a post advocating for a coordinated political effort a few weeks ago [1], but it didn't get any traction. However, seeing comments like this gives me hope.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016752

Post reply on HN