Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

Another Expansion of Copyright

posted by chromas on Friday August 03 2018, @06:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the copywrong dept.

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

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Another Expansion of Copyright | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 66 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:43PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @06:43PM (#716868)

    01001111 01001011 00101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 01110011 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101101 01100101

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Funny=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Friday August 03 2018, @07:33PM (1 child)

    by Bot (3902) on Friday August 03 2018, @07:33PM (#716922) Journal

    The Indians for the concept and the Arabs for the graphics of 1 and 0 would want a word with you, sir. Then of course you must channel the spirit of a couple mathematicians who came up with the binary system. Boole came later.

    --
    Account abandoned.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @08:13PM (#716951)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

      The term "Arabic numerals" is controversial, primarily because some think the only alternative is Roman numerals and thus the name implies that base-10 positional notation was invented in Arabia, when in fact it is a Hindu invention.

      Of course, that says nothing about the glyphs, but that's a whole 'nother rabbit hole.