SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 21 2018, @07:33PM (2 children)
and by year 50 we would assume that most rights holders would rather develop new ideas instead of continuing to pay to protect old ones?
Dr Who would be out of copyright, as would Star Trek. These are two franchises still under active "development", and IMO should be treated somewhat different to the majority of copyright works which are abandoned -- akin to trademarks I guess.
Take Elvis Presley songs, no reason to have them in copyright now as far as copying them goes, however if you wanted to do a mashup with them, and claim it as a new "Elvis Presley" song, that would be wrong in my view
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 21 2018, @07:44PM (1 child)
Early Dr Who would be out of copyright - if you wanted to play a clip from a 50 year old Dr Who episode as part of a presentation, you would not need to seek permission or pay for it... I think that's reasonable - same for Star Trek. Why should anybody be collecting royalties on the old Shatner episodes anymore? For that matter, they probably would also have abandoned copyright protection on the lamer series like Voyager by now, also. If late-night cable TV channel 729 wanted to run some Voyager episodes royalty free, they could - it's not like they would have payed to run them if they were still copyright protected.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday May 22 2018, @09:15AM
That's not the problem. With Kirk + Who out of copyright, it opens the gates for anyone and his dog to create their own versions, at least under copyright law. Clearly CBS/Viacom/Paramount wouldn't like that. And while you could argue that's a good thing, and allow things like Axanar to be made, it also confuses the market - you're never sure what the genuine thing is. That I guess is where trademarks come in.
As for Voyager copyright, I'm sure netflix are paying something to show it.