Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday August 03 2018, @08:02PM (2 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 03 2018, @08:02PM (#716946) Journal

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Friday August 03 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)

    by black6host (3827) on Friday August 03 2018, @08:37PM (#716966) Journal

    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

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 04 2018, @01:16AM (#717048) Journal

      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.