How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It)

from the bad-ideas dept

Last month, we wrote about the problems of the CLASSICS Act that the House was voting on. There's a lot of background (much of it included in that post), that is not worth repeating, but the very short version is that sound recordings from before 1972 are treated somewhat differently under copyright law than songs recorded since February of 1972. Specifically, pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered by federal copyright law, but by a weird batch of state laws. Due to a bunch of shenanigans, many of those works will not be put into the public domain until 2067, even if by any other measure they should be in the public domain. The RIAA has always liked this aspect of pre-1972 songs. However, there are other aspects of pre-1972 songs that the RIAA does not like, and that's mainly that the lack of federal copyright coverage means that those works (mostly) don't get any performance rights, since most state laws didn't have such a concept. That's money the RIAA feels is being left on the table.

One way to handle this would be to just federalize the copyright on pre-1972 works and put all works on an equal footing. Easy, right? But that's not what the CLASSICS Act does. Instead, it just modernizes the parts of copyright for those works that help extract more money from people (such as adding in performance rights) while refusing to bring with it the parts of copyright law that protect the public -- including the timeline for things moving into the public domain.

Larry Lessig has a piece over at Wired where he explains how this is really just the latest attempt at copyright extension. Earlier this year, we had noted (happily!) that it appeared that the usual crew of copyright maximalists had appeared to give in, saying they had no intention to push for any sort of copyright term extension this year, meaning that for the first time in decades in the US, some works may actually enter the public domain on January 1st next year. And while the CLASSICS Act isn't a straight-up copyright term extension, it is a form of copyright expansion on old works, done for no other purpose than to give the copyright holders more ways to extract money, without any corresponding public benefit. As Lessig notes, this is explicitly a welfare system for musicians:

That this statute has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of “promot[ing] Progress” is clear from its very title. The “Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act” (or CLASSICS) is as blatant a gift without any public return as is conceivable. And it's not just a gift through cash; it's a gift through a monopoly regulation of speech. Archives with recordings of music from the 1930s or 1940s would now have to clear permission before streaming their musical content even if the underlying work was in the public domain.

Yet there is no registry of these owners anywhere. And while massive digital suppliers, such as Apple Music and Spotify, could probably afford to carry the burden, no public or non-profit website could even begin to bear the cost of assuring they were not committing a crime. The act doesn’t harmonize American law with international law. Indeed, it creates more disharmony. No other jurisdiction creates a similar right anywhere. The act is simply a gift, paid for by further weakening the ability of archivists to keep our culture accessible. That’s why more than 40 professors of intellectual property of all political stripes signed a letter this week asking Congress to reject the CLASSICS Act.

Now that the bill is in the Senate, EFF is asking people to contact their Senators telling them to vote no on this bill.

Now, I should note that I've seen some recording industry lobbyists mocking Lessig's piece, claiming that how could he be against supporting musicians. This, of course, is the whole setup of this bill. It's designed -- like so many copyright expansions in the past -- to make it hard for people to question, because, really, who doesn't want to support the content creators we like? But that ignores the other side of this equation. Copyright is designed to benefit the public. The whole setup is to give an exclusivity to content creators for a limited time in order to give them the incentive to create.

For EVERY SINGLE WORK that would be impacted by this bill, that incentive worked. It worked decades and decades ago. Those recordings were all created prior to 1972. So why do they now need more incentive for the works that were already created? And why, if we're giving them more incentive, does the public not get anything back in return? That's the hidden part that the lobbyists and think tank shills for the recording industry are hoping you'll ignore. The "expansion" here is at the expense of the public. And it's a big expense. For no benefit at all. The copyright system was an incentive system for creation, in the recognition that it would then help the public get access to content. But the CLASSICS Act flips that over. It takes away from the public and provides no new incentives to anyone.

Instead, it's just a welfare bill for musicians. And, hey, Congress can set up a welfare system for musicians if it wants to, but it should be described as such and debated as such. Instead, this is being positioned very differently, because of course that's how the RIAA plays things.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 9:45am

    Reminder: Copyright incentivizes distribution, not creation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      thanks for reminding us you're an idiot

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        wiLLie Tracker, 21 May 2018 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re:

        Oh the irony.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Whether or not the AC is correct that OP is an idiot, he is correct in pointing out that OP is at least on some level incorrect.

          Sure copyright incentives distribution as OP states, it it also incentivized creation as well which OP incorrectly stated "not creation".

          In a test of true and false, any falsehood in a statement renders the entire statement as false! And if I were a better person... that is why AC called OP and idiot!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 11:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            it also incentivized creation as well

            How does copyright give me an incentive to create?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:10am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I have artists in my own family and I am working on something that if all goes well will net me some income.

              For me as a "creator" I am looking forward to the fact that my creation will be an intellectual property I get to own. I will not be giving it to a middle man as some of my family members have, I will be owning it entirely on my own and filing for it on my own. If I could not own it, I would not be expending my spare time creating it instead of doing something entertaining or getting a 2nd job or more income.

              Copyright is most certainly an incentive for both distribution and creation. If creators would stop selling their souls to the distribution model a lot of these problems would become fixed soon enough.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:12am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So how does retroactively establishing copyright on work by long-dead composers/performers "incentivize" creatitvity?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:29am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  That is not what is being argued about.

                  The argument is only over the incorrect statement.

                  Retro actively establishing copyright would not incentivize me to do anything as a creator, but OP did not say that.

                  There, I cleaned up your straw for you, try not to drop it all over the floor again!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 5:49pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Suddenly Mr. Paint Chip Anarchist wants the government's involvement? I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that the armchair critic is a hypocrite...

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It is nice to have someone come right out and admit it isn't for the love of music that they produce music.
                Everyone in my family does it for the love and the money is secondary.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:33am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Some people do produce music for just the lover of it.

                  I also create things for the fun of it to. I have done game mods that I have released to the community and I got no payment.

                  But I still have incentive as a creator to create by having a copyright law back me up.

                  There is more than 1 incentive and incentives for each creator can be different. Additionally what incentivizes one creator might not incentivize another.

                  The point being... there is an incentive, even if that incentive does not motivate all participants!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:49am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Copyright is not essential to earning money from creativity.

                Appealing to an audience to create the fans who will support you is. That means getting your works known, and allowing the to circulate for free is an effective way of getting feedback as to whether your works have enough appeal to build that fanbase, as well as building that base.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 1:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Copyright is not essential to earning money from creativity."

                  Not making that claim. Just saying it's has more than a negligible effect on my decision making. Definitely enough to consider it incentivizing for sure!

                  "Appealing to an audience to create the fans who will support you is."

                  Maybe, not all kick-starters succeed. My problem is that will my fans appreciate my work enough to give a no name a shot on promises alone? I don't have the resources to take that risk and quit my day job. I also feel that it would be unfair to ask for fan funding while having another job that can take time away from a project my fans have already paid for.


                  "That means getting your works known, and allowing the to circulate for free is an effective way of getting feedback as to whether your works have enough appeal to build that fanbase, as well as building that base."

                  I don't have a problem with any of my work being distributed for free to customers enjoying it even if those copies were illegal, I would never seek prosecution for that or use DRM. The point of copyright is not to protect me from my customers. It is to protect me from immoral competitors. I would seek prosecution of anyone making money off my work.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 22 May 2018 @ 2:42am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Maybe, not all kick-starters succeed."

                    Neither do all artists signed to a traditional record deal. At least with the kickstarter you're not tired into a multi-album deal that can leave you in debt to the label for life. Many artists who signed decades ago are still paying off their advance.

                    "I also feel that it would be unfair to ask for fan funding while having another job that can take time away from a project my fans have already paid for"

                    Well, that's your choice. If you can't afford to fund a project yourself, but you refuse to ask fans to fund you, then I'm not sure what to say other than you're deliberately restricting yourself in ways that have nothing to do with copyright.

                    "The point of copyright is not to protect me from my customers. It is to protect me from immoral competitors"

                    It's nice that you see that, and this is one of the reasons that while I think copyright is broken, the worst thing to happen would be for it to be removed completely (those with most resources can then rip off those with less without opposition).

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Wendy Cockcroft, 23 May 2018 @ 7:12am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      ^This. Also, when you sign a record deal they'll give you an advance which they then take back off you — and they take your copyright. It could be years before you make any money off your work because you've got to pay the record company back first.

                      That's assuming they don't get all creative in terms of screwing you out of royalties. Only the most popular artists make any money out of copyright.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Toom1275 (profile), 27 May 2018 @ 3:06pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Didn't recording industry accounting work something like this?

                        You get a $100k advance for an album

                        You make The album

                        So now the album's selling, and now you need to pay back the advance.

                        You're supposed to get 10% royalty from each album sold.

                        But you're not gonna see a cent for a good while. Why?

                        Because the studio doesn't use its cut of your album for covering your debts, it uses your cut. That 100k advance? your album will need to sell $1M to cover that, and that's without first going to paying for interest or studio rental or distribution fees or...

                        So with no money coming in, your choices for maintaining a livelihood are:

                        If your music is popular enough, try the physically taxing process of touring and live shows to make some cash, or

                        Get another advance and get deeper into the cycle. Go further

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 6:01am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    It's all about you isn't it?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 12:00pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Copyright is most certainly an incentive for both distribution and creation.

                If copyright ceased to exist tomorrow, would you still create works?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 1:31pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You are creating a fallacy.

                  Even if copyright ceased to exist and I still created works, it does not mean that it was not an incentive.

                  I can say this, the destruction of Copyright would definitely change my trajectory. Without the copyright I would certainly not be so willing to create a work that could be immediately stolen by EA and monetized by them.

                  As a creator I do support Copyright law in the original Constitutional sense. For limited time. I don't think copyright law should last for more than 10 years.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 4:09pm

                    I can say this, the destruction of Copyright would definitely change my trajectory. Without the copyright I would certainly not be so willing to create a work that could be immediately stolen by EA and monetized by them.

                    This means you are afraid to distribute without copyright. A corporation cannot steal your work if you do not somehow distribute it; EA employees do not go rampaging through private homes in search of works to steal. (Not yet, anyway.) You would still create works in the absence of copyright, but you would not distribute them for fear that someone else could take credit for your works and do a better job of monetizing them. While I doubt you meant to prove my point, you did it all the same.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 10:21am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Even if copyright ceased to exist and I still created works, it does not mean that it was not an incentive.

                    So... is it an incentive to create, or to create with a specific business model in mind? If the latter, is it the business model we want to be encouraging? Models like Patreon can work without copyright.

                    Note also that EA couldn't "steal" anything without copyright. They could copy it, but then why would people pay EA rather than you? They could create a derived work, as you could from theirs.

                    Of course, selling something is pretty different from remixing it or putting it online, so we could start with that instead of eliminating copyright entirely: limit its applicability to commercial exploitation, as it effectively was when the Constitution was written (was any non-commercial user sued before 50 years ago?).

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 7:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                If I could not own it, I would not be expending my spare time creating it

                Probably another good reason to get rid of copyright.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:10am

        Re: Re:

        Feel free to disprove, using unbiased sources.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          There is no such thing as an unbiased source.

          Everything has a bias, including subatomic particles and facts.

          Next time just admit that you can't think for yourself and figure out why they might hold that position.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 2:18pm

      Re:

      Reminder: Getting paid incentivizes effort. Been true for, like, thousands of years...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 4:12pm

        Re: Re:

        You can get paid for creating a work without having to slap a copyright on it. That, too, has been true for thousands of years.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 6:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Perhaps. Have any examples of this consistently happening?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 9:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            How about the entirety of culture and art created before the inception of copyright? I mean, I doubt Michaelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for shits’n’giggles.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 2:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There was old style patronage which included jobs like church organist, where a rich person supported an artist, which was the case for the traditional composers or painters. There were also those who sold their skills, like portrait painters. Actors and musicians gave live performances, and even with recordings, live performance is a more reliable source of income for a musician than recordings. These days with the Internet, the fans of an artists, (who are not all of the audience), can provide enough patronage.

            In all case a body of published works, (or performances) is needed to gain the audience and fan base to support the artists. Almost all of the YouTubers who make a living full time from their creativity spent several years building their channel and reputation before they were able to give up the day job.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 9:18am

      Re:

      Reminder: Copyright incentivizes distribution

      How so? Regular people don't care about copyright. They'll distribute anything they enjoy, and copyright is just something a lawyer will smack them with occasionally, for reasons they don't understand (cf. No Copyright Intended: The Coming Generation Who Intrinsically Assumes Remix & Sharing Makes Sense).

      The recording industry has spent huge amounts of money trying to disincentivize distribution. People were distributing their stuff all over the place, and their response was to buy a law allowing takedown notices.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 May 2018 @ 11:56am

        Re: Re:

        Copyright incentivizes legal distribution by providing a “temporary” monopoly on such distribution to the creator of a given work. That right gives to said creator the ability to sell their works without having to worry (too much) about other people selling those works under different circumstances. Any creator who gives up that right has to compete with those other sellers, which severely limits the amount of money that the creator could take in, which means the largest incentive for legal, monetized distribution of a work would require the artist to put in far more effort for much less of a guaranteed outcome.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 1:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Control of the distribution of a creation is not essential to making a living. Red Hat who make a living from supporting users of Red Hat Linux, employ software developers who work on the free software that they support, along with providing the Infrastructure along with management and technical support to Fedora and Centos, which are free to download distributions. Note, Centos is the same code as Red Hat, just with all the branding changed.

          Not only are they competing with free copies, they are supporting their distribution as well.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 May 2018 @ 3:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Control of the distribution of a creation is not essential to making a living.

            But it is a hell of an incentive to actually sell a creation.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 5:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              A point no-one was disputing. Yes, if you pretend something is property, salespeople will try to sell it. That doesn't mean that it should be property, or that selling it is societally useful.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2018 @ 5:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That right gives to said creator the ability to sell their works without having to worry (too much) about other people selling those works under different circumstances.

          You're making a circular argument tangential to the earlier claim. You're basically saying that a monopoly incentivizes monopolistic distribution, by the holder of that monopoly. As the history of the music and film industries shows, literally everyone else is better suited to handle distribution. When a buddy of mine gives me a copy of a CD, I don't have to waste time ripping it; when they give me a movie or game, I don't have to screw around with DRM. I can dump this stuff onto a hard drive from which I can access any stored item in less than a second (without being subject to the whims of the studios wrt. Netflix/Spotify/etc. licensing churn).

          The actual claim was that copyright incentivizes distribution; legality, exclusivity, and money were not part of it. I might say that the lack of copyright would incentivize legal distribution too. After all, what other kind of distribution would then exist? And when has any well-loved digital work suffered for lack of distribution, except because of copyright?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 May 2018 @ 1:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Ah, but legality and exclusivity are part of it if someone would not distribute their works absent the two major privileges of copyright: exclusive control over distribution and the legal right to sue unauthorized distributors. A writer could create a story that would make them rich and famous if published, but if they believe they will never get paid what they deserve for that story in the absence of copyright, they might not ever publish that story.

            Copyright incentivizes distribution. Whether you consider it a worthwhile incentive does not matter.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2018 @ 3:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              but if they believe they will never get paid what they deserve for that story in the absence of copyright, they might not ever publish that story.

              So rather than risking making less money than they think they deserve, they will make no money. That is how to end up a bitter twisted person, moaning about lost opportunities because they would rather make no money to ensue nobody else could make money from their work.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 May 2018 @ 6:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Nobody ever said making money from creative works would be easy…unless they were paid to say so by the MAFIAA.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2018 @ 7:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  yes, but not trying is the easiest way to not make money.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 23 May 2018 @ 7:15am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Not just easy - a guaranteed right by the mere act of putting pen to paper, face to camera or voice to record. All you had to do was sign a contract with them!

                  They just didn't count on reality pouring in once they lost control of the gates. It's a shame so many creative people were actually sold on the false promises before they even started.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 9:58am

    The “Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act”

    Someone has to ask, for the works covered how many of the artists are still alive, and do the labels have contact records for them and for the inheritors of those who have passed away?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      Doesn’t matter. The record companies will claim they own the copyrights, then rake in the income while the politicians line their pockets with campaign contributions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        MathFox, 21 May 2018 @ 10:06am

        And once in a while a legitimate heir will come out of the woodwork, claim their legitimate part of the revenue and be forced into a lawsuit where the lawyers are the only ones who will financially benefit from the situation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re:

        Still matters, because while the odds of the actual creators getting anything from this may in the 'low to none' range, they, not the recording companies, are who are being held up as justification for the bill.

        If it turns out that they don't stand to benefit from the bill except for a handful of big names then it would make it all the clearer that this is yet another cheap 'won't someone think of the artists?' con that has nothing to do with them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:02am

    Now, I should note that I've seen some recording industry lobbyists mocking Lessig's piece, claiming that how could he be against supporting musicians.

    Oh? Does the RIAA have a monopoly on that game?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Roddy (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 10:16am

    You know, if the industry would just put the exact same amount of effort into reworking their distribution model that they put into coming up with these hideously forced acronym bill titles, the entire problem would probably start to fix itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      That would require them to actually do some gorram work, to actually give up some of the control they are so obsessed over, and moreover to admit that what they've been doing isn't working.

      The odds of any of those happening are low to say the least.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:28am

      Re:

      > these hideously forced acronym bill titles

      Joking Only Has Net Real Ongoing Dumbing Down of YOU.

      In other words, acronyms aren't much effort, John-o.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jim, 21 May 2018 @ 10:19am

    Musicians? or Record Companies?

    I doubt if any musicians will see any money on pre-1972 recordings. Their record companies will though. Anyone who was under 20 in 1972 would be 66 by now, so some of the early rock n rollers might see something. If the record company bothers to inform them.
    I'd bet their contracts didn't even include performance rights or electronic media rights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 1:03pm

      Re: Musicians? or Record Companies?

      The Rolling Stones are still making money from music of that era, but they do so by giving concerts rather than relying on royalties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 23 May 2018 @ 7:15am

        Re: Re: Musicians? or Record Companies?

        Per my earlier comment that's how most musicians make money; they have to pay their record companies back for the advance, etc., and in any case the record company owns the copyright.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:25am

    lets cut to the chase here

    Only businesses are allowed to own IP. Anyone that wants to create becomes a slave first!

    Artists have already signed up to become slaves to their IP masters so they are the last thing I care about right now.

    They caused the problem, they deserve to suffer for it! The people that keep feeding these oppressive systems have no right to complain either. You are literally getting what you have paid for!

    ~No Sympathy

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rich, 21 May 2018 @ 10:39am

      Re: lets cut to the chase here

      IP is a misnomer. No one "owns" a copyright.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: lets cut to the chase here

        okay, you just made mess with all of that straw...

        Care to clean it up?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 1:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: lets cut to the chase here

          I see straw man is on you logical fallacy of the day calandar too. Though you should probably read the meaning of it before taking it out for a test spin.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 2:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: lets cut to the chase here

            "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

            Where did I state that someone "owns" a copyright? Rich posted "IP is a misnomer. No one "owns" a copyright."

            I never made that claim. I said "owned IP" and IP is not copyright. And Owning IP is NOT a misnomer. IP = Intellectual Property, and property is owned! Just because it is owned, does not mean exclusive use either. I own my own fucking name but you can still use it because of "fair use".

            So how does it feel to be this stupid? Let me guess... normal for you huh?

            This might be of use to you.
            https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fallacy
            "A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood."

            As clearly stated by me, Rich used a misleading argument based on a falsehood. I called his particular fallacy the straw-man one. If you have a better fallacy then I am all ears!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 3:37pm

              Well you tried...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 7:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: lets cut to the chase here

              I think the point that sailed over your head was based on the fact that the "property" in "intellectual property" is legally and conceptually distinct from real property; one does not and cannot own, create, or transfer it in the same way that they would real property. Usually this comes up in discussions of the word "theft" (as opposed to infringement), but it naturally occurs when speaking of ownership as well...although I would say "copyright owner" is nowhere near a contentious a term and it would not be my choice debates to have with you. Scholars of copyright law generally understand these distinctions, and many opt to use neutral terminology. Others regard intellectual property and real property as completely equivalent, falsely believing "property" has only one meaning, and they invariably prefer the loaded terminology, especially if they stand to benefit from it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 10:28am

    'Wont someone think of the corpses(and my profits)!'

    AA's: We just want to modernize the law with regards to pre-72 recordings so that it matches/exceeds how post-72 recordings are treated.

    Anyone paying attention: All of it?

    AA's: Oh hell no, just the parts that we'll benefit from, the stuff that helps us we definitely want to keep.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 10:35am

    You're NEVER gonna get hold of Mickey Mouse now, Mansick!

    Cry yourself to sleep every night, sad boy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 11:14am

    copyright collisions

    Another problem that exists - and this Classics Act bill does not address - is the intersection/collision of overlapping copyrights. A music video contains at least three separate copyrights (and at least four if anything in the background it was filmed against was copyrighted). This can create quite a logistical mess, especially years down the road when trying to acquire all these various permissions in order to not be in violation of anyone's copyright.

    http://blog.sonicbids.com/why-you-might-not-be-able-to-legally-make-a-video-of-your-own-co ncert.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 11:26am

    Well, let's ensure the US has no cultural memory while we stuff our asses with money, shall we? - The MAFIAA

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 21 May 2018 @ 12:56pm

    Some inventivization that is.

    You know, normal people are incentivized to earn money when they run out of money. So if we wanted more works getting created by people with a proven track record, the way to do this would be to prehumously reduce copyright terms and confiscate the surplus people made. This would be particularly incentivizing for people having created hugely popular works.

    Now that is how to incentivize living people to create more works, but copyright lasts beyond death already. So the main focus is on how to incentivize dead people to create more works, and we all know that ghosts are hard to motivate for anything short of unfinished business.

    So incentivizing dead people is best done by stopping their business from being finished. Thus posthumous copyright extensions.

    However, it might also be worthwhile to incentivize living people, so how about stopping copyright terms prehumously, say for 20 years until death?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 1:30pm

    This sounds wrong, but,

    An artist creates and continues to the NEXT THING..

    A person in it to MAKE MONEY, Creates and earns money Over and over and even AFTER HE DIES, either the corp or Family get the money for another 2-3 generations?? OFF OF THE WORK A GRANDFATHER HAD DONE?? Even the rich cant go this far.

    And in the beginnings of the RIAA, the contracts for the recording industry WE TERRIBLE for the artists.. everything went tot he corp and almost NOTHING to the artists, and NOW every part of the music is Protected, from Music, Words, and a few other parts..AND DONT EVER TRY to play a song from a Movie, TV series..

    In all of this, you would think that the artist DURING HIS LIFE,, could save money and let his family live off what was Incurred in his LIFE TIME, and NOT after his death. But they really dont get paid allot.

    PS. the MPAA wants the SAME..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jlturriff (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 1:48pm

    "...this is explicitly a welfare system for musicians..."

    This is a welfare system for the media companies, not for musicians. As Mr Lessig says, "Archives with recordings of music from the 1930s or 1940s would now have to clear permission before streaming their musical content even if the underlying work was in the public domain."

    Many, if not most, of the artists who produced those works in the '40s and '30s have either given up any hope of receiving royalties for their works or have in fact ceased to exist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 2:27pm

    CBS went after Google on 60 Minutes last night. The optics of trying to take even more money away from musicians is not timed well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 21 May 2018 @ 3:20pm

    Support the creators and artists

    I wholeheartedly, 100% support the creators and artists. What I *don't* support are the corporations that hold the copyrights to all the music. Extending the copyrights on music doesn't help the artists when almost all of the royalties go to the corporations and record labels.
    Remember the dust-up a few years ago where Apple was accused of not paying the artists? Even Taylor Swift argued against Apple. Yet the media didn't mention the fact that Apple's contracts were with the record labels and not the artists, therefore, Apple didn't have to pay the artists since the record labels were supposed to do that. But it's always easier to argue against a large company like Apple than to look into the details.

    The second problem is that it sounds like this law will cover every recording, whether or not the rightful copyright-owner can be found. Then what? Does the public lose out on the recording because a radio station is too afraid to play it and get sued because they didn't pay a royalty?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 3:26pm

    Copyright is cancer. Its abolishment is the cure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    fuck holed cunts in the arse hole cunts, 21 May 2018 @ 4:31pm

    cunts

    wholly owned subsidiary of cunts and fucked in the arse cunts and cuntholes

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2018 @ 9:23pm

    Not a welfare system for musicians

    Its not for the benefit of musicians. It is for the benefit of the record labels. They will keep all of this additional revenue. Nothing will ever make it to the musicians. Thus the argument to support the bill so musicians can earn a living is a lie and should be called out. The record labels should be made to disclose how much of the additional proceeds will actually go to the musicians.

    Of course the politicians only listen to the lobbyists who contribute to their campaign funds and other ventures. So even though this will cost the public and not benefit the musicians, I sure it will be supported by the majority of congress.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2018 @ 9:25pm

    All of your creations belong to us!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.