6 ms·

> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing

by syshum 8y ago

> is that it guarantees that writers of pre-1972 songs receive federal copyright protection it is a sad day for the constution, and for the Public.... Nothing pre-1972 should have any copyright at all at this point, Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. 28 years is the MAXIMUM anything should be copyrighted for, 14 years if the copyright is held by a company The erosion of a vibrant Public Domain catalog is one of the greatest travesties of modern human civilization

shshhdhs 8y ago
> The erosion of a vibrant Public Domain catalog is on of the greatest travesties of modern human civilization Ok, well I was with you until that last point. This is not one of the “greatest” travesties compared to wars, genocides, concentration camps, torture, mass murders, pillage, etc. Some cultures were literally wiped from history, and it puts things in perspective. We can hopefully fix copyright with future legislation, but it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Some of the more obscure stuff does end up lost entirely. This is more of a problem with digital formats, especially games, where copying is intrinsic to preservation. The arcade machines with self-wiping "DRM" systems are a particularly strong example. Most of the old Doctor Who episodes that have been recovered have been from copies that were not supposed to have existed.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Actually those old Doctor Who episode were recorded perfectly legally. UK Copyright legislation has an exemption for recording off-air broadcasts for personal use for the purpose of timeshifting. It doesn't say how long you are allowed to shift the time.
    - soundwave106 8y ago
      To clarify, most of the fan-recorded Doctor Who episodes recovered were of the audio only. Home video recording was extremely expensive until roughly the 1980s -- I am not aware of video recovered by home fan enthusiasts. Most of the recovered video episodes have been 16mm telerecordings intended for overseas broadcasting. Doctor Who is lucky in that there was a nice size fanbase from the get-go. Some not so popular programs from that era are indeed gone forever. (An example I can think of offhand is the 1960s soap opera United! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United! -- reportedly all 147 episodes of that program were wiped.) As far as this act goes, my initial impression is that standardizing a mechanism for mechanical royalties is probably a good thing overall, same with the added protection for those on the production side. But the CLASSICS act portion strikes me as very rent-seeking in nature, I'm not a fan of infinite copyright economically.
      - LocalH 8y ago
        There were a handful of episodes where the color was recovered from NTSC U-Matic off-air recordings, with the luma coming from the existing black and white film.
- realusername 8y ago
  > We can hopefully fix copyright with future legislation, but it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever. You can thank piracy for that, most of the content was saved by individuals not following copyright laws and would be lost otherwise.
- syshum 8y ago
  >> it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever. Yes some things are, many things in fact have been lost forever. Popular things where people simply ignore the law are often preserved, but that is not the case with obscure / less popular works or works where the create aggressively fights any archiving or preservation efforts. >This is not one of the “greatest” travesties compared to That depends on how you define Modern Civilization, and where you want to cut off the list of "one of". I do however think you down play the significance losing these works can have on our understanding of history, what actually took place, and to be able to study why some of those events occurred. If you do not believe that is a great travesty then I guess we will just have to disagree
asah 8y ago
greatest travesties? It's just money.
- ChrisRR 8y ago
  Money runs your entire life. Good luck living without money
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Sure. But when people say "it's just money", I believe the real objection they have is "it's disproportionally screwing other people for sake of personal gains". I.e. antisocial behaviour.
charlesdm 8y ago
One could argue if you made something, you're entitled to the rights. If a painter makes a painting, he'll be able to pass those down to his children. But if a musician makes a song, it'll end up in the public domain after X years.
- drngdds 8y ago
  Apples and oranges. You're comparing a physical thing to 'intellectual property'.
- markvdb 8y ago
  Why should I have to pay for the state enforcing an artificial monopoly on a recording your (great grand)father made? The natural state is no such enforcement. Copying the original is essentially zero marginal cost. P.S. Pro musician here.
- petercooper 8y ago
  The physical vs non-physical aspect makes it more complex, but I think the situation is ultimately the same..(?) A painter like a musician can keep and pass down a physical representation of the original image (a canvas vs a gold disc/master) but the rights to the image/song itself can enter public domain and be reproduced (a print vs an MP3). It's kinda interesting to me that in art the physical object is revered above the image itself, whereas I can't imagine there are many people who spend millions on gold discs or masters of culturally significant songs.
  - triangleman 8y ago
    But they do pay the original artist to come to their show and play their original hits. Meanwhile other people pay less to see a cover band.
- ovi256 8y ago
  The intellectual rights on the painting (can anyone reproduce it, in say, print, without the rightholder's agreement) are quite separate from the property rights on the physical embodiment of the painting. Literature is closer to music in this aspect, as neither has any physical property. Copyright on both is limited.
asaph 8y ago
> Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. Where does this seemingly arbitrary number of 14 years come from?
- ryukafalz 8y ago
  It was the original copyright term in the United States, from the Copyright Act of 1790: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
readbeard 8y ago
While you may be right, 14 and 28 years (with extension) are currently unrealistic goals due to international obligations [0]. However, I believe returning to the terms of the 1976 act (75 years or life plus 50 years) would be imminently achievable with good political maneuvering. Thinking this was a hot-button issue on HN, I submitted a post advocating for a coordinated political effort a few weeks ago [1], but it didn't get any traction. However, seeing comments like this gives me hope. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016752
- syshum 8y ago
  One of the reasons I opposed TPP was the copyright provisions that expanded on the Berne's Convention, however Berne's Convention I do not believe applies to Audio (music) or Books, only Photos and Movies Further as we have seen recently in other area's it is not really that hard to rip up international treaties, I think we will be fine to just ignore Berne's

by syshum 8y ago

shshhdhs 8y ago

> The erosion of a vibrant Public Domain catalog is on of the greatest travesties of modern human civilization Ok, well I was with you until that last point. This is not one of the “greatest” travesties compared to wars, genocides, concentration camps, torture, mass murders, pillage, etc. Some cultures were literally wiped from history, and it puts things in perspective. We can hopefully fix copyright with future legislation, but it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever.

pjc50 8y ago
Some of the more obscure stuff does end up lost entirely. This is more of a problem with digital formats, especially games, where copying is intrinsic to preservation. The arcade machines with self-wiping "DRM" systems are a particularly strong example. Most of the old Doctor Who episodes that have been recovered have been from copies that were not supposed to have existed.
- Angostura 8y ago
  Actually those old Doctor Who episode were recorded perfectly legally. UK Copyright legislation has an exemption for recording off-air broadcasts for personal use for the purpose of timeshifting. It doesn't say how long you are allowed to shift the time.
  - soundwave106 8y ago
    To clarify, most of the fan-recorded Doctor Who episodes recovered were of the audio only. Home video recording was extremely expensive until roughly the 1980s -- I am not aware of video recovered by home fan enthusiasts. Most of the recovered video episodes have been 16mm telerecordings intended for overseas broadcasting. Doctor Who is lucky in that there was a nice size fanbase from the get-go. Some not so popular programs from that era are indeed gone forever. (An example I can think of offhand is the 1960s soap opera United! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United! -- reportedly all 147 episodes of that program were wiped.) As far as this act goes, my initial impression is that standardizing a mechanism for mechanical royalties is probably a good thing overall, same with the added protection for those on the production side. But the CLASSICS act portion strikes me as very rent-seeking in nature, I'm not a fan of infinite copyright economically.
    - LocalH 8y ago
      There were a handful of episodes where the color was recovered from NTSC U-Matic off-air recordings, with the luma coming from the existing black and white film.
realusername 8y ago
> We can hopefully fix copyright with future legislation, but it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever. You can thank piracy for that, most of the content was saved by individuals not following copyright laws and would be lost otherwise.
syshum 8y ago
>> it’s not like all the material was destroyed forever. Yes some things are, many things in fact have been lost forever. Popular things where people simply ignore the law are often preserved, but that is not the case with obscure / less popular works or works where the create aggressively fights any archiving or preservation efforts. >This is not one of the “greatest” travesties compared to That depends on how you define Modern Civilization, and where you want to cut off the list of "one of". I do however think you down play the significance losing these works can have on our understanding of history, what actually took place, and to be able to study why some of those events occurred. If you do not believe that is a great travesty then I guess we will just have to disagree

asah 8y ago

greatest travesties? It's just money.

ChrisRR 8y ago
Money runs your entire life. Good luck living without money
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Sure. But when people say "it's just money", I believe the real objection they have is "it's disproportionally screwing other people for sake of personal gains". I.e. antisocial behaviour.

charlesdm 8y ago

One could argue if you made something, you're entitled to the rights. If a painter makes a painting, he'll be able to pass those down to his children. But if a musician makes a song, it'll end up in the public domain after X years.

drngdds 8y ago
Apples and oranges. You're comparing a physical thing to 'intellectual property'.
markvdb 8y ago
Why should I have to pay for the state enforcing an artificial monopoly on a recording your (great grand)father made? The natural state is no such enforcement. Copying the original is essentially zero marginal cost. P.S. Pro musician here.
petercooper 8y ago
The physical vs non-physical aspect makes it more complex, but I think the situation is ultimately the same..(?) A painter like a musician can keep and pass down a physical representation of the original image (a canvas vs a gold disc/master) but the rights to the image/song itself can enter public domain and be reproduced (a print vs an MP3). It's kinda interesting to me that in art the physical object is revered above the image itself, whereas I can't imagine there are many people who spend millions on gold discs or masters of culturally significant songs.
- triangleman 8y ago
  But they do pay the original artist to come to their show and play their original hits. Meanwhile other people pay less to see a cover band.
ovi256 8y ago
The intellectual rights on the painting (can anyone reproduce it, in say, print, without the rightholder's agreement) are quite separate from the property rights on the physical embodiment of the painting. Literature is closer to music in this aspect, as neither has any physical property. Copyright on both is limited.

asaph 8y ago

> Copyright should be for 14 years + a single 14 year extension if the Human Creator is still alive to file for the extension. Where does this seemingly arbitrary number of 14 years come from?

ryukafalz 8y ago
It was the original copyright term in the United States, from the Copyright Act of 1790: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

readbeard 8y ago

While you may be right, 14 and 28 years (with extension) are currently unrealistic goals due to international obligations [0]. However, I believe returning to the terms of the 1976 act (75 years or life plus 50 years) would be imminently achievable with good political maneuvering. Thinking this was a hot-button issue on HN, I submitted a post advocating for a coordinated political effort a few weeks ago [1], but it didn't get any traction. However, seeing comments like this gives me hope. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18016752

syshum 8y ago
One of the reasons I opposed TPP was the copyright provisions that expanded on the Berne's Convention, however Berne's Convention I do not believe applies to Audio (music) or Books, only Photos and Movies Further as we have seen recently in other area's it is not really that hard to rip up international treaties, I think we will be fine to just ignore Berne's