SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The House of Representatives has combined the largely good Music Modernization Act with the CLASSICS Act, which would add new royalties and penalties to recordings made before 1972, without giving anything back to the public. That same mistake was replicated in the Senate with S. 2823.
The CLASSICS Act would extend federal copyright restrictions and penalties to sound recordings made between 1923 and 1972, making it so that songs recorded in that era would, for the first time, not be able to be streamed online without a license. Currently, various state laws govern this relationship, and those laws don't give record labels control over streaming.
The CLASSICS Act gives nothing back to the public. It doesn't increase access to pre-1972 recordings, which are already played regularly on Internet radio. And it doesn't let the public use these recordings without permission any sooner. While some recording artists and their heirs will receive money under the act, the main beneficiaries will be recording companies, who will control the use of classic recordings for another fifty years. Important recordings from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s won't enter the public domain until 2067. And users of recordings that are already over 90 years old will face the risk of federal copyright's massive, unpredictable penalties.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:47PM (17 children)
OP gets "Score:2, Informative" for baseless, hysterical, hyperbolic claim; the countering AC gets "Score:-1, Troll".
Bias much, SoylentNews?
My hand is forced: Time to start re-posting downmodded comments.
-----
What is clear is that the Democrats buy votes by promising to steal other people's money and re-distribute it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Friday August 03 2018, @06:51PM (2 children)
Have facts to the contrary, start posting such. As far as I can see, it is a black eye for our senators and congress people all around, and a win for recording companies as a whole. While the posting does lack citations some subjects are just so plain as to not require them.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:08PM (1 child)
As you say, "some subjects are just so plain".
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday August 03 2018, @11:48PM
So the source of the money is the root of the corruption ? Not the fact that the votes can be bought in the first place ? I think you are to focused on the symptom and not the sickness.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday August 03 2018, @07:09PM (9 children)
Republicans have spent the last 18 months focused exclusively on the happiness of corporations, because what's good for corporations has to be good for the country, regardless of what it does to the people or the environment. At the level currently displayed, and because of Citizens United that is easily interpreted as corruption.
Inflammatory on-topic exaggeration gets upvoted.
Whataboutism comment equates taxation (and actual fiscal responsibility) with stealing people's money, and brands the government's social programs -elsewhere considered a feature of being civilized, and a cost-saving concept compared to jails- as the buzzword "redistribution", associated with the never-proven-despite-looking-all-the-time "buying votes".
Inflammatory offtopic whataboutism gets downvoted.
But hey, it's early, the numbers will change
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:13PM (5 children)
Republicans are the most corrupt?
Nope. Not the way I see it.
OP gave his opinion, and I gave mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:55PM (3 children)
That is fine, but if people regard your opinion as trolling whataboutism then expect to get modded down. Or do we need to make a safe space where your opinions are respected by everybody and no one is allowed to criticize them?
You realize anyone can click the + button and see what you wrote yes? Maybe some other person will mod you up because they find the troll mod unfair, maybe not. Let the feedback from the community guide your method of communication.
Maybe if your ideas seem to be unfairly modded down all the time you might just be wrong? Naaaah, no amount of discussion has swayed your single minded dogma even a little bit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)
That's the deal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @09:29PM
MOD THIS SOYBOY DOWN! Don't stop till we reach -aleph!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Friday August 03 2018, @11:04PM
"Let the feedback from the community guide your method of communication."
Changing views for community acceptance (vs. non-fallacious counterpoint) is called an echo chamber. Disagree.
Changing wording and presentation to avoid getting whapped by people who don't like people being jerks on the forum I can get behind however. Agree.
(depending on what you actually meant)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday August 04 2018, @05:21PM
OP gave his opinion, and I gave mine.
And notice that instead of being modded down you were modded up.
It's when you engage in bad-faith arguments, fallacy, and lies that you get modded down.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday August 03 2018, @08:02PM (2 children)
Perhaps it depends on your definition of corruption. E.g., Senator Feinstein *could* have defended voting for a copyright bill because it protected companies in her constituency. As far as I can tell, that didn't even occur to her. She voted for it an did not explain her reasons to me, one of her constituents. I'm forced to conclude that she considered her reasons indefensible.
P.S.: I'm not talking about this bill, I'm talking about one a bit of awhile ago. The one before that she (or her staff) lied directly in a response saying they would consider my opinions after she had already taken money and voted in committee.
So I consider Feinstein corrupt. Would she still merit being called corrupt if she had defended her vote as supporting important industries in her constituency? After accepting campaign support from them?
Now, FWIW, I haven't heard any legislator explain their vote in a manner that I find both convincing and non-corrupt. This doesn't mean that such don't exist, as I don't pay that much attention, especially to legislators whose constituency I am not in. But clearly at the moment Republicans are more in the news with displays of blatant corruption. This may be because they're the party in power, but by my definition, they are much more blatantly corrupt than the Democrats were the last time they controlled the presidency and both houses. One can reasonably argue against this on either the grounds of a different definition of corruption, or that blatant corruption does not equivalence to effective corruption. Against that I can only say "my definition is my definition, and falls within the generally accepted meaning of the term corruption" or "effective corruption is hard to evaluate".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by black6host on Friday August 03 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
Perhaps you're referring to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 04 2018, @01:16AM
Actually I was referring (in the comment about the direct lie) to a revision of...I forget the official name, UCITA. I think it was section 2b, but that's long ago, and while I remember the lie and betrayal, I don't remember the details. IIRC it didn't actually pass, but the changes they were trying to slip into that got implemented in other ways that caused less immediate public outcry.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bot on Friday August 03 2018, @07:41PM (3 children)
The proper stance for any self respecting citizen is to belittle their lazy ineffective servants called politicians no matter the color. The problem with your post, is that you said the democrats, while the topic shows reps stealing money from people by making them pay for cultural assets. Those songs were not created in a vacuum. It is unfair to pay the COMPOSER (note the term, music is composed not created) for having composed preexisting ideas and barring others to reinterpret it for free. It is unfair to pay someone else.
Copyright was a SUSPENSION of NATURAL RIGHTS. An indefinite suspension is theft. You wouldn't download a suspension, no?
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @07:56PM (2 children)
The rest of your reply is pretty much drivel that does nothing to help build a stable, prosperous society.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday August 03 2018, @08:19PM
>The rest of your reply is pretty much drivel that does nothing to help build a stable, prosperous society.
How many centuries before the big rightful guys (whom you are handing all the control to) start doing that? Don't tell me they are doing their best because it is demonstrably not so.
Never mind, back to topic, the corporate labels.
Shall I post some youtube music videos of the media behemoths that are "helping building a stable, prosperous society"? Sites like vigilantcitizen have the cream of the crop.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @09:31PM
That is funny, I was thinking the same thing about every single one of your posts. All you've got is the sentiment of pro-freedom.