8 ms·

Why? To better incentivize people to make music in the 1940s and 50s?

by mhansen 15y ago

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
It also means You can trust your music will be your own, for most of your life.
- ArcticCelt 15y ago
  In that case force labels to revert 100% of the rights back to the original creators after 25 years. We will see how much those so called "artist rights lobbyist" work for that one.
- watchandwait 15y ago
  "Your music" is just a remix of sounds and words from earlier artists. Extending copyright like this stifles innovation and future creativity.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Please explain this nonsensical argument. How does the Rolling Stones holding the copyright to Paint It Black stifle someone else's innovation and creativity? Seriously. Innovation and creativity go with being original, and you're encouraging being derivative. Look at Disney and don't tell me that a lack of copyright makes creativity. A lack of copyright just enables corporations to mass produce drivel from non-copyrighted works and cut out the talented people. Disney is barely a step away from just an algorithm that creates film scripts from Brothers Grimm stories.
- Peaker 15y ago
  There's no need for retro-activity here. It necessarily does not give any incentive for the works for which it applies, while still costing society the same high price.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  You think people who start their own rock band do it for the pension benefits? Also do you really think this is about a handful of rock groups that would benefit from this? It's all about the labels, period. They stand to gain a lot more from this than a bunch of 70 year old artists, who by the way, are still gaining from their more "recent" 50 year old music.
- jemfinch 15y ago
  When copyright periods are described, they describe the amount of time after the author's death that the work remains copyrighted. Your music is your own while you live with no limitations; this is about your estate and your inheritors deriving profit from your work, not about you.
  - jessriedel 15y ago
    No, not in this case. Composers and authors enjoy protection past their death, but this law refers to music performers. These are only protected for 50 years from the date they are created.
    - jemfinch 15y ago
      Ah, you seem to be right: http://www.openmusicarchive.org/faq.php http://www.openmusicarchive.org/faq.php
    - notahacker 15y ago
      This is important, as presumably you can't copy a recording with impunity if the musical composition is still under copyright (as with any songs written in the 1960s). If thats the case, it just means more people actually responsible for creating the recording get paid
- lobo_tuerto 15y ago
  It also means _you_ can trust your music rights will be your music label's own, for most of your life.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Then if _you_ care so much, why did _you_ sell out to _your_ music label? There's other ways to handle the music labels than abolish copyright.
- A1kmm 15y ago
  If you write music, it will always be your music, even after the copyright has expired. Copyright is about the government stopping other people from using a work without permission of the copyright holder, not about identifying whose work something is.
eftpotrm 15y ago
If I wrote a book in 1961 (hypothetically, that would have been precocious even for my parents), it would be in copyright for 75 years after my death. If I recorded a song in 1961, that recording would go out of copyright this year under the previous regime. The rights and wrongs of lengthy copyright protection are a separate issue, but the differential treatment of different artistic forms is something I feel should be addressed. This is a step towards equalisation (not full equalisation but a lot less controversial and so easier to enact), and for that I'm thankful.
- jellicle 15y ago
  Oddly enough, I've never yet seen anyone making the "harmonization" argument argue that the lengthier term should be reduced, rather than arguing that the shorter term should be lengthened. Why is that? Nor is it clear that different countries and different media should have the same rules in the first place.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Authors get to, musicians don't, this gets especially tricky when you get artists like (hate to mention him) Justin Bieber who have legitimate recording and writing credits in his early teens. Given the sort of healthcare accessible to the extremely wealthy, it's doubtful that this kid wont outlive copyright even at 70 years from his 2009 copyrights. The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you. Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd. Then you have organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who act on behalf of mega-corps that have conglomerated thousands of peoples work under themselves and keeps those artists trapped with huge debts, lengthy record contracts, etc. The RIAA does to musicians what Monsanto does to farmers. They're elephants throwing their weight around in a pen full of guinea pigs, and its hard to see these corporations as anything but evil and greedy. Basically because all they are are evil and greedy. Then you have the legislators who all have a lot of green mysteriously slipped into their pockets, and they claim to be pro-business and support copyright because it helps the little guy. Whilst the little guy is generally unable to be helped because they're firmly squashed beneath an elephants feet. The problem gets really complex when an authors children starts making legitimate derivative works, because then the series as a whole needs to be kept in copyright to enforce the derivative works clause. So who decides what would be a legitimate derivative work to extend copyright to the end of the child's life, and what isn't so the material has a chance to re-enter the market and not be killed off by the Estates greed. Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity and discourage people trying to make Hollywood sales on everything they make.

Why? To better incentivize people to make music in the 1940s and 50s?

by mhansen 15y ago

Why? To better incentivize people to make music in the 1940s and 50s?

JoeAltmaier 15y ago

It also means You can trust your music will be your own, for most of your life.

ArcticCelt 15y ago
In that case force labels to revert 100% of the rights back to the original creators after 25 years. We will see how much those so called "artist rights lobbyist" work for that one.
watchandwait 15y ago
"Your music" is just a remix of sounds and words from earlier artists. Extending copyright like this stifles innovation and future creativity.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Please explain this nonsensical argument. How does the Rolling Stones holding the copyright to Paint It Black stifle someone else's innovation and creativity? Seriously. Innovation and creativity go with being original, and you're encouraging being derivative. Look at Disney and don't tell me that a lack of copyright makes creativity. A lack of copyright just enables corporations to mass produce drivel from non-copyrighted works and cut out the talented people. Disney is barely a step away from just an algorithm that creates film scripts from Brothers Grimm stories.
Peaker 15y ago
There's no need for retro-activity here. It necessarily does not give any incentive for the works for which it applies, while still costing society the same high price.
nextparadigms 15y ago
You think people who start their own rock band do it for the pension benefits? Also do you really think this is about a handful of rock groups that would benefit from this? It's all about the labels, period. They stand to gain a lot more from this than a bunch of 70 year old artists, who by the way, are still gaining from their more "recent" 50 year old music.
jemfinch 15y ago
When copyright periods are described, they describe the amount of time after the author's death that the work remains copyrighted. Your music is your own while you live with no limitations; this is about your estate and your inheritors deriving profit from your work, not about you.
- jessriedel 15y ago
  No, not in this case. Composers and authors enjoy protection past their death, but this law refers to music performers. These are only protected for 50 years from the date they are created.
  - jemfinch 15y ago
    Ah, you seem to be right: http://www.openmusicarchive.org/faq.php http://www.openmusicarchive.org/faq.php
  - notahacker 15y ago
    This is important, as presumably you can't copy a recording with impunity if the musical composition is still under copyright (as with any songs written in the 1960s). If thats the case, it just means more people actually responsible for creating the recording get paid
lobo_tuerto 15y ago
It also means _you_ can trust your music rights will be your music label's own, for most of your life.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Then if _you_ care so much, why did _you_ sell out to _your_ music label? There's other ways to handle the music labels than abolish copyright.
A1kmm 15y ago
If you write music, it will always be your music, even after the copyright has expired. Copyright is about the government stopping other people from using a work without permission of the copyright holder, not about identifying whose work something is.

eftpotrm 15y ago

If I wrote a book in 1961 (hypothetically, that would have been precocious even for my parents), it would be in copyright for 75 years after my death. If I recorded a song in 1961, that recording would go out of copyright this year under the previous regime. The rights and wrongs of lengthy copyright protection are a separate issue, but the differential treatment of different artistic forms is something I feel should be addressed. This is a step towards equalisation (not full equalisation but a lot less controversial and so easier to enact), and for that I'm thankful.

jellicle 15y ago
Oddly enough, I've never yet seen anyone making the "harmonization" argument argue that the lengthier term should be reduced, rather than arguing that the shorter term should be lengthened. Why is that? Nor is it clear that different countries and different media should have the same rules in the first place.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Authors get to, musicians don't, this gets especially tricky when you get artists like (hate to mention him) Justin Bieber who have legitimate recording and writing credits in his early teens. Given the sort of healthcare accessible to the extremely wealthy, it's doubtful that this kid wont outlive copyright even at 70 years from his 2009 copyrights. The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you. Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd. Then you have organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who act on behalf of mega-corps that have conglomerated thousands of peoples work under themselves and keeps those artists trapped with huge debts, lengthy record contracts, etc. The RIAA does to musicians what Monsanto does to farmers. They're elephants throwing their weight around in a pen full of guinea pigs, and its hard to see these corporations as anything but evil and greedy. Basically because all they are are evil and greedy. Then you have the legislators who all have a lot of green mysteriously slipped into their pockets, and they claim to be pro-business and support copyright because it helps the little guy. Whilst the little guy is generally unable to be helped because they're firmly squashed beneath an elephants feet. The problem gets really complex when an authors children starts making legitimate derivative works, because then the series as a whole needs to be kept in copyright to enforce the derivative works clause. So who decides what would be a legitimate derivative work to extend copyright to the end of the child's life, and what isn't so the material has a chance to re-enter the market and not be killed off by the Estates greed. Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity and discourage people trying to make Hollywood sales on everything they make.