13 ms·
Senate passes copyright bill to end 140-year protection for old songs
- pianoben 8y agoIt's a telling indictment of the current state of intellectual-property regulation that public-domain activists consider a 100-year copyright to be a "victory". It's hard to imagine that this term won't be extended again before 2067!
- 35719385638 8y agoAs bad as it is, I'd consider it something of a victory considering the only reason I clicked the HN link to this discussion was my cognitive expectation in yet another defeat for copyright law pessimistically substituted "end" with "extend," and evoked a defeatist reaction that I might come here to bathe in sorrow. Once I started reading the article and comments I was really confused until I reread the title very slowly to catch my mistake in perception. I guess we really do see the world through our own predecided lenses of reality and choose how an internal narrative will match any evidence in support or censor in defense. Or rather, that's only me. And I hope to overcome that with (un)learning. :D
- throwaway77384 8y agoHad the same reaction :)
- onetimemanytime 8y agoAll things considered, a drop from 140 years to 100 is a good outcome. Then we discuss details like the right to profit from mother's /father's music and for how long....
- mesozoic 8y agoIs there a list of the most popular music this will release?
- pas 8y agoThis needs to pass the House and Trump too, no?
- CapitalistCartr 8y agoThe House already did, so now its off to the Oval Office, but since it has overwhelming votes, a Presidential veto would be pointless, as The Congress has the votes to override.
- jkaplowitz 8y agoIn addition to a veto being pointless, I don't think Trump cares about this issue at all. By which I mean, he wouldn't have a motivation to veto it. If he takes no action, it becomes law automatically, aside from some edge cases around the end of a Congressional session where the bill dies. He'll probably prefer to preen in front of the cameras with a signing ceremony, I imagine.
- habitue 8y agoJust a nit, but they have to reconcile the two versions first before it goes to the president's desk
- tzs 8y ago> [...] but since it has overwhelming votes, a Presidential veto would be pointless, as The Congress has the votes to override. I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think it is going out on a limb to predict that President Trump will not be happy about a veto of his being overridden, and will be very vocal about that. Has President Trump actually said anything about this issue? If he said he's against it and Congress still overwhelmingly voted for it then you are probably right--they would also vote to override a veto. But if he has been silent on this and he vetoes it I would be shocked if a lot of members of Congress do not decide that they only voted for it because they thought the President was at least neutral on it and will realign their positions to conform to his.
- swebs 8y agoWow, from 140 years to 110 years. For comparison, patents only last 20 years.
- Spivak 8y agoThe goal of copyright is not to put works into the public domain, it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work. This has been the basis for every copyright extension and the courts have agreed seeing little value in letting works go public domain.
- MereInterest 8y ago> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Promoting the arts definitely sounds like extracting maximum value.
- habitue 8y agoI think Spivak's comment was talking about the "de facto" purpose as born out by experience. I usually don't like being cynical, but it seems copyright legislation is one of those areas where it's hard to be overly pessimistic
- lsiebert 8y agoprogress is promoted when people can use existing stuff. Just look at Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and other things remixing existing public domain stuff.
- MereInterest 8y agoSorry, I forgot how poorly sarcasm translates over text. I completely agree, and think that the current copyright period is far too long, preventing expansion on existing works.
- pishpash 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- moetech 8y agoI can't think of any good reason why music should even be copyrightable.
- lucasmullens 8y agoSo that musicians get fairly compensated when you use their song in a movie or ad?
- moetech 8y agoShould we really be incentivizing making music as a career? And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
- Arainach 8y agoYes, we should. If you want things done well, you want people to be able to make a living doing them. I'd love to see any sources on your claims regarding to music creation - certainly, a huge portion of quality artwork is the result of people being paid for it/creating with the expection that they'll be able to sell it. This has been true for centuries.
- aqme28 8y ago> Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career? Sure, why not? > And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it. Most of the money goes to the few at the top, it's true. How does that change things?
- moetech 8y ago>How does that change things? The point is that there won't be a shortage of new music even if everyone stops being paid to make music.
- rectang 8y agoSomewhere out there, there exists an alternate universe where musicians ponder nonchalantly whether people should be compensated for software. "Can't they just sell software logo t-shirts?"
- cwkoss 8y agoI wonder what questionable language got slipped into this bill by lobbyists.
- cbanek 8y agoI can only imagine the kids asking, "why don't old TV shows have the happy birthday song in there?" I'm wondering what other songs might come into TV and other popular media now that they are public domain. Note: Both the music and lyrics are in public domain in both the European Union and United States. The copyright expired in the European Union on January 1, 2017. In the United States, a federal court ruled in 2016 that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim was invalid and there was no other claim to copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
- xemdetia 8y agoWell the issue is more that it's been such a asterisk on a song it'd be more kids never hearing 'Happy Birthday to You' in the first place. 'Happy Birthday' and sharing blowing out the candles may be the most common non-direct experience provided by media for a group of people who wouldn't pass on the song as tradition, and so on and so on.
- bo1024 8y ago> I can only imagine the kids asking, "why don't old TV shows have the happy birthday song in there?" There must be some response here about the likelihood of kids getting the chance to watch old TV shows, given the current state of copyright law....
- ddingus 8y agoSadly, that may be a valid use case for piracy. Then again, Dinosaur Media Limited probably will be streaming...
- flukus 8y ago> There must be some response here about the likelihood of kids getting the chance to watch old TV shows, given the current state of copyright law I'm starting to think this might be one of the drivers of current copyright laws, the biggest competitor for media companies is gradually becoming there own back catalogs. When you've got 50 years of classics to watch or rewatch you're less willing to spend money on new content.
- buboard 8y ago100 years that's insane. The world needs to catch up with the times. copyright needs to be down to a few (<10) years Max. The main reason being that you can monetize it more efficiently and much faster today.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoUnder 10 sounds just as insane as a century. There are countless artists and authors who go undiscovered for years before having a breakthrough and becoming popular. There's a lot of non-fiction books that are slow but steady sellers for years. Some of that non-fiction needed years of research. Drop copyright to say 5 years and you hurt all of those creators, potentially quite badly. The Disney's, George Martin's and JK Rowling's of the world would be hurt vastly less as so many of their sales are right around release. If I had to throw a number out I'd go with something like 20 years, and upto 5 or 10 years beyond death - to cover those writing an autobiography or creating something in their final years.
- imglorp 8y agoAgree with these ideas of limits, but I'd also add limits to transfer. It seems where we get into trouble is artists transferring the rights to corporations--which seems okay--but then the corporation can use substantial political power to fight for them forever, long after the artist has expired. You might want something like "until artist dies, or if sold to another party, 10 years for that party." We see the same sort of thing with patent trolls - if all you do is buy up IP and then sue someone, that's not a model that furthers humanity or IP creators.
- cocacola1 8y ago14 years of copyright + another 14 years if the author was alive and renewed was already a solid amount to begin with. This is absolutely ridiculous.
- reaperducer 8y agoI'll be long dead before any of these changes matter. I know I should be happy for future generations, but for some reason I can actually feel why the big-name politicians don't care about this. Because it will never even remotely affect them.
- paulie_a 8y agoThis is why I grew up with zero respect for copyrights. I simply ignore them without consequence. Send me a dcma notification, it goes in the garbage. I dont care, copyrights have become so insane it's easier to just disregard them.
- BLKNSLVR 8y agoThe only problem with this position is that it doesn't go any way to improving things. It's a silent protest. This opinion is immediately excluded because it's non-participatory. It's a conundrum.
- paulie_a 8y agoI don't have a goal to "improve things" sometimes and in this particular case I just don't care. it really isnt a conundrum and it's not a silent protest, I just ignore the copyright without a thought and continue on with my day.
- skookumchuck 8y agoIt should be 20 years max.
- zerocheeses 8y agoArticle gets it backwards. There is currently no copyright on sound recordings made before 1972. Under the new legislation, such sound recordings would disappear from the public domain and retroactively get a 95-year copyright term.
- b0bby_tabl3s 8y agoWell, after 140 years, I don't think the original owners are worried about collecting any royalties?