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

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#81

Post by xamuel »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #7
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…

> 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…

You say that like no-one would show up to a Paul McCartney concert if Beatles songs were public domain.

In actuality, the examples you listed are especially painful because we could be enjoying incredible derivative works based on their music, if not for the stupid way copyright works.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#82

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#83

Post by tauntz »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #64
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…

The laws differ per country, which makes this super complicated. One of the complexities is that you cannot actually opt out of copyright in many countries and semi private institutions exist that by default will start demanding fees for other people's works based on vague notion of them being the designated organization to do so. The legalities around this are super complicated but it boils down to private instituti…

The same is true in Estonia. Legally any artist can form an organization that is entitled to collect royalties for other artist's work. In practice there is only one such organization (Eesti Autorite Ühing) because nobody bothers to set up their own shop.. and if you're an artist and NOT a member of EAÜ they'll still happily collect money for your work and distribute it amongst their own members and own salaries/real estate etc.

It's absurd.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#84

Post by danaris »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #32
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.

Nope. Mickey Mouse is not subject to copyright. As a character, he's subject to trademark, which allows him to remain under Disney's control for as long as they continue to protect the trademark.

What would go into the public domain is Steamboat Willie, the original Mickey Mouse short.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#85

Post by FreakyT »

jaxtellerSoA wrote: post #76
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…

> 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. Boy you are generous, if it was up to me copyrights would have a life of 10 years, no extensions/renewals. Ten years ought to be enough to squeeze a healthy chuck of profits out of your material. If after 10 years you can't/haven't come up with anything new, then you better find a new job…

Agreed -- in addition, a shorter term like this fixes a major issue with using "life" specifically, which ends up unintentionally creating an incentive to murder the creator.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#86

Post by fogetti »

Well this is what the tech giants brought to us. The middle finger and an automated 'Up your ###' message. Not a far fetch to assume that soon similar technologies will judge your work resumes and credit worthiness too. With a similar up your ### message of course.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#87

Post by jaxtellerSoA »

chrismorgan wrote: post #41
giancarlostoro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don’t think Disney would keep their rodent. Calculate the sum, and by about eighty years, $10 × 1.5 ⁶⁹ is some $14 trillion, so they’d have handily paid off the US national debt by then. Another fifteen years, to get back to the beginning of the sordid affair, would be mildly ruinous.

>so they’d have handily paid off the US national debt by then.

You did it! You found the solution to the national debt! Lets implement his right away!

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#88

Post by rbrtdrmpc- »

I personally work with music copyright claims for an internet company and as i see a lot of folks here (including the author) are missing the copyright thing. They are not claiming for the fingerprinted music, they are claiming for what the big publishing companies are saying, and they are the ones making the rules. This is how it works more or less, YT fingerprints a piece, they run their algorithms on new content and if they match the fingerprint, also using metadata, if its right and guess what, most of the time its not, they look at what the MULTIPLE publishers claims on the same stuff. Publishers can claim whatever they want, they need just to face other publishers if they abuse their power (and bare with me, this is mad because there is no central authority!), there is no such way as YouTube able to rule on copyrighted content. So as an example, if i upload a video with the 5th of Beethoven, the algorithm can fingerprint it correctly, next YT looks at what publishers are claiming and if there is someone with a valid recording of that piece at a "performance" level, they need to pay for the content otherwise stated. And just to add something more, there are three different type of "claims" in the music industry, mechanical, synchronization and performance share, more about the aforementioned here http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-licensing-public-perform...

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#89

Post by thatcat »

graeme wrote: post #79
indigochill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the gist of this, but I'm actually leaning towards a shorter copyright lifespan. Maybe 20? The reason being that I feel this better balances the need to benefit from your work (20 years is quite a while to be exclusively entitled to something) with the need for society to build on your work without threat of litigation. I feel 50 years benefits the former a bit too much at the expense of the latter. Just…

What about business. Any business writing is copyright protected too. I've been on business for eight years, and it would be very weird it the stuff I wrote and still use on my site expires in 12 years. It potentially will still be just as valid in that time. I know the tech world changes fast but there are some niches where something written or recorded in 1998 is still valid today.

That's the point of copyright, so that the public eventually benefits from giving you protection for the term of the copyright. It's suppose to still be valid.

Re: Can Beethoven send takedown requests?

#90

Post by powellzer »

clon wrote: post #40
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 h…

Your analogy makes more sense (to me) if Lazy rich child B was left original recordings of their father's music. This, like a house, would be something material that they could sell one time. Conversely, if child A was left the rights to blueprints for how to build said house. That would be something immaterial that they could license or sell the rights to.
Post reply on HN