Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday May 21 2018, @12:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the Frodo^W-Mickey-Mouse-Lives! dept.

https://boingboing.net/2018/05/18/orrin-fucking-hatch.html

https://www.wired.com/story/congress-latest-move-to-extend-copyright-protection-is-misguided/

Almost exactly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. The Act was the 11th extension in the prior 40 years, timed perfectly to assure that certain famous works, including Mickey Mouse, would not pass into the public domain.

[...] Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right—basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?)—for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don’t have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.

That this statute has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of “promot[ing] Progress” is clear from its very title. The “Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act” (or CLASSICS) is as blatant a gift without any public return as is conceivable. And it's not just a gift through cash; it's a gift through a monopoly regulation of speech. Archives with recordings of music from the 1930s or 1940s would now have to clear permission before streaming their musical content even if the underlying work was in the public domain.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Monday May 21 2018, @01:46PM (3 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Monday May 21 2018, @01:46PM (#682157)

    Recently the member of a vintage computing forum was trying to post recordings of some vintage pre 1920's 78 RPM records and got slapped with youtube copyright takedowns.
    http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?63299-My-latest-YouTube-venture-It-s-pretty-vintage [vcfed.org]

    This illustrates a couple of sore copyright points.

    First, the precise length of a specific work's copyright is not as simple as it seems. It depends on a number of factors, which are not easy to know.

    It also well illustrates how modern copyright requires that all works sit and rot until they turn to dust, benefiting no one except some coke snorting hooker banging music/movie executives somewhere.

    That, in part, is why collectible computer floppy disk media goes in to the trash when it reaches most thrift stores or such - fear of copyright issues.

    And it shows that these dicks are actively sitting on even the oldest of copyrights, with no real recourse if you think they are wrong.

    It is sad to realize that common people these days find the idea of public domain to be a completely foreign concept.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Bean Dip on Monday May 21 2018, @02:42PM (2 children)

    by Bean Dip (5604) on Monday May 21 2018, @02:42PM (#682196)

    Recently the member of a vintage computing forum was trying to post recordings of some vintage pre 1920's 78 RPM records and got slapped with youtube copyright takedowns.
    http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?63299-My-latest-YouTube-venture-It-s-pretty-vintage [vcfed.org] [vcfed.org]

    This illustrates a couple of sore copyright points.

    First, the precise length of a specific work's copyright is not as simple as it seems. It depends on a number of factors, which are not easy to know.

    Agree, it can be complex to determine if a work is in the public domain. But your pre-1920 records are clearly public domain. See link below for a comprehensive flowchart.

    https://sunsteinlaw.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/copyright-pointers/copyright-flowchart/ [sunsteinlaw.com]

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 21 2018, @03:49PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday May 21 2018, @03:49PM (#682231) Journal

      Yeah, anything pre-1920s should be in public domain, but that doesn't mean someone can't slap a copyright takedown notice on it. (Particularly if it is a recording of something famous that has later versions still in copyright.) And a few of those flag an account... and fighting all that can be more of a pain than it's worth.

      The problem nowadays is that copyright terms are SO long and SO much is in copyright that the default assumption seems to be that something is likely in copyright -- and it's up to you to prove otherwise if someone is abusing it. Which is a major signal the system is completely screwed up.

      Anyhow, the point is that the law isn't of much help in some of these situations unless you're willing to argue with (and perhaps fight legally) a few giant corporations. Many people just don't have the time, initiative, and/or resources to deal with that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @05:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @05:25AM (#682537)

        the default assumption seems to be that something is likely in copyright

        ...resulting in years and years of films on nitrate film stock allowed to turn into sludge rather than be restored onto modern stable film stock or digitally archived and distributed.
        (After somebody has done the work and paid the expenses, some jerk might pop out of the woodwork and claim ownership--though that jerk had never done shit with the movie himself.)

        .
        A story from days ago:
        The last guy alive to have been transported here on a slave ship told his story to a writer who at one time had been a federal employee (New Deal).

        They couldn't figure out whether the work was done during that period (negating copyright) or not.

        The family of the writer has its head completely up its ass.
        They don't know their own family's history.
        They won't publish the work themselves and they won't sign a release either.

        So, the work continues to just sit there, unpublished.
        Copyright Once Again Hiding Important Cultural Artifacts [techdirt.com]

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]