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: 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.