time to finish rotting and vanishing from history!
This is my major issue (besides the fact that it applies retro-actively somehow) with extending the term; orphaned works are already out of control. I'm fine if I can't use the latest banal pop track for backing in a home movie for the rest of my life. But these durations are so long that no one cares or even remembers the media by the time it's unshackled. Forget about monitizing it that long, it's not even worth keeping on a server unless you're interested in preserving history/culture/all that unprofitable B.S.
You know what? Screw 'em. You want your song locked up for 70 years? Fine. We'll all pretend it never existed to begin with if that's what you really want. Just keep it off the radio and outta my face.
On the other hand, it sets the precedent that we could reduce the copyright term on existing works.
You know, if we ever manage to keep our representatives from being bribed to betray us, or if the bribers finally go out of business after decades of clawing to stay above water in an irreverent industry.
While I think I understand your explanations of "transformativeness" I have an issue with this rationale. It comes off as "fair use is for famous people." If I had done this same thing, no one would have paid anything for it; does that make it less legitimate fair use?
Then you should be thanking this woman for doing what you, and probably I, are too cowardly to do. Assert her rights in the face of acts that violate our constitution and way of life. Without people standing against unlawful exhibitions of power, there will be no impetus to change these illegal policies and practices.
Nope. But the book/music/program that you license, and don't own and can't modify, should be available to you for the duration of the license agreement.
They love to play that trick though, when you try to sell or modify it "sorry, that's not your property just a license" but when it breaks or is lost or stolen "bad news, your property needs to be replaced".
Not that it's all that hard to do, the DMCA lends itself very nicely to stripping consumer rights in the name of copyright protection. Just slap some DRM on there and yell "infringement" and suddenly you have absolute power.
I'm no expert, but you'd think these DRM geniuses could come up with a "golden DRM" that lets them stop infringement while not trampling all over our ownership rights. /s
Except that it's still abusing unrelated laws to exert control over property that they've ostensibly sold to someone else. You can scrape off any and all logos from your property and any trademark suit they throw at you for NOT displaying their logo on your things is laughable.
Just like a copyright infringement suit for changing your property to NOT use their copyrighted program should be laughable.