Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ASCAP Seeks Licensing Fees For Guitar Hero Arcade

Posted by Soulskill on from the understanding-is-too-much-effort dept.

Self Bias Resistor writes "According to a post on the Arcade-Museum forums, ASCAP is demanding an annual $800 licensing fee from at least one operator of a Guitar Hero Arcade machine, citing ASCAP licensing regulations regarding jukeboxes. An ASCAP representative allegedly told the operator that she viewed the Guitar Hero machine as a jukebox of sorts. The operator told ASCAP to contact Raw Thrills, the company that sells the arcade units. The case is ongoing and GamePolitics is currently seeking clarification of the story from ASCAP."

37 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. The music industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The music industry shooting iself in the foot? Colour me surprised...

    1. Re:The music industry by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could be dangerous. Usually the foot is in their mouth.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by dikdik · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The music "industry" is not music. It's just middle men. They create drag, friction, between the musicians and the fans. They are an unneeded artifice, a relic of an earlier age, in my mind. For instance:

    "Despite the fact that these games are very successful and are drawing a great deal of attention to the music represented in the games, the industry is not pleased with the licensing arrangements that allow the games to use their songs."

    Does anyone here think "their songs" refers means "the artist's songs" or does it rather mean "Corp X's songs". Their original argument in the opening salvo of their war against the internet was "think of the artists!" Well, apparently they don't abide by their own logic (nor have they ever). From the very same article:

    "Music games are proven earners--Aerosmith has reportedly earned more from Guitar Hero : Aerosmith than from any single album in the band's history." Fuck the music industry. Please, just die already.

    1. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "... [T]he industry is not pleased with the licensing arrangements that allow the games to use their songs."

      So, they're licensed, and allowed to use the songs?

      Glad that's all cleared up, then. Move along, nothing to see here.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe it was Mafia and gangster money that financed the first record companies when the artists moved out of the clubs and into larger venues and they wanted to take advantage of the new playback technologies like the humble gramophone. Dirty money started it and dirty money still runs it. Glad to see nothing has changed in the last 90 years!

      Dump that mass-produced U2, X-Factor cack and start checking out your local club scenes, get into niche music of your choice, where the artists benefit directly from your investment.

    3. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We could get rid of them. If they didn't have the monetary muscle and clout to twist laws around and bunker behind a wall of lawyers (albeit the mental picture of RIAA lawyers being layered on top of each other like sandbags is appealing...), they would have lost most of the influence they have.

      The point is that they have become obsolete. What's their trade? Basically it's being the middle man between producer of art and consumer, as you pointed out. Their job was to bring the music the artists make to the people who want to enjoy it.

      And that's not needed anymore. I can see their fear of the internet. It is the perfect medium to distribute information. And that's basically the business they're in. If there is a free middle man, like the internet, who would pay one?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ASCAP is too the "music industry". They just happen to be the gatekeepers of performance rights, rather than the copyrights. Do a little bit of research into ASCAP and you will find that they are every bit as anti-artist and anti-consumer as the RIAA. They have been caught withholding funds from artists while tossing around the idea of charging royalties on cell phone ringtones. They are in the same exact position as the RIAA -- worthless leeches on our society that stand between artists and fans. I would even say that ASCAP is worse, their obscenely high licensing fees simply ensure that most places simply won't play popular music. A sane person would consider their song being played at the mall to be free advertising, but ASCAP would beg to differ. ASCAP? They more like ASSHAT.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by jocknerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why are you bashing U2? Because you probably weren't born when they WERE the club scene. Learn your music history dude. If you want to bash the "boy bands" and pop stars, thats fine, but not bands who worked their asses off to become the biggest act on the planet.

      Or are you one of those cool kids who likes an act until it becomes popular, then you call them a sellout? If you like artists that are unknown, fine, thats your choice. But just because an artist sells a lot of records doesn't mean they aren't worthy of my listening.

      I've seen the small club venues. I've seen the unknown acts. Sorry, but 90% of them suck. Can't play, can't sing. Every now and then, I see some real talent sneak through. I saw John Mayer in 2001 when he opened for Glen Phillips. I saw Dave Mathews when they were hitting the local bars in Virginia in 1993. I saw U2 when they played before 5,000 fans in 1983.

    6. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remember the ASCAP threatened to sue the girl scouts and boy scouts over the signing done at camp!

    7. Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? by dem0n1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remember the ASCAP threatened to sue the girl scouts and boy scouts over the signing done at camp!

      Is it a performance if you only use your fingers?

      --
      Why save your soul when you can sell it for a profit?
  3. A jukebox? by TimeElf1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would think a GH video game stand would be more akin to a DDR arcade game than a jukebox.

    --
    Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
  4. I'd go further... by blcamp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IANAL but I'd tell the ASCAP flunky that the music's ALREADY LICENSED to start with. Otherwise it wouldn't even make it to the GH machine in the first place, right?

    Sounds like an attempted shakedown of a small business that's not legally bound to pay anything in this instance.

    Perhaps ASCAP need to be introduced to a different acronym: RICO.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:I'd go further... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ya well the problem is that ASCAP is a DIFFERENT licensing entity, one of the many of the music industry's screwed up model. So ASCAP isn't about licensing specific performances of songs. They don't deal with with the license for a CD or the like. The deal with public performance licenses. This applies no matter if you are talking about playing a recorded song, or a band playing their own version of it. They want licensing money for the composer if the song is played in public.

      So it is a different group wanting a slice of the pie for different reasons. You can have a license for the copy of the music you have, but NOT a license to perform it publicly. Yes, it is rather stupid.

      ASCAP is also another one of those nice, mandatory, monopoly-type organizations that some how gets away with operating through special legal loopholes for them.

  5. Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry" by FinchWorld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google ASCAP, its just another organisation that operates like the RIAA. So yes, they do apply. I mean, they wanted people to pay for public performances of there work if your ringtone was a song that went off in public.

    --
    "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
  6. When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The companies represent the artists because the artists sign a contract affording the company the right to distribute (and the responsibility/incentive to police unauthorized distribution). Aerosmith can manage their online distribution themselves ("Hey, Tyler... it's Wednesday: Your day to modify the XML!") or they can strike a deal with a company to handle that kind of stuff for them.

    -Aerosmith has reportedly earned more from Guitar Hero : Aerosmith than from any single album in the band's history

    That's great. Do you think they could have gotten that deal if they weren't represented by their company? Do you think Tyler could even make it downstairs before lunchtime if a third party did not have a vested interest in their success and distribution?

    Don't get me wrong: I'm all for artists -- musicians, writers, composers, comedians -- managing as much of their own distribution as they can. The smaller, less established you are, the more it matters; the bigger, better established you are, the more difficult it becomes. But it is the choice of the artist. I buy produce directly from the growers at Farmers' Markets whenever I can, but I do not begrudge the grocery stores their role in the supply chain.

    1. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by Kalvos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty good thoughts, thanks. (And nice you mention the farmers' market analogy -- our daughter runs a CSA called Tangletown Farm and depends on farmers' markets.)

      I'm an ASCAP member, and have been for 20 years. Unlike bands, I'm a composer. I don't do gigs; I write the stuff that's played at gigs. Even more unmatched to the usual /. complaint, my music isn't pop, and it comes off a sheet of paper or computer screen to performers.

      Although my distributor sells some paper scores and parts, I allow download of all my scores and parts for musicians who want to print them by themselves. So that means I live almost entirely on the royalties from licensed performances -- and it isn't much, I'll tell you, because schools are exempted if it's part of the educational program, religious institutions are always exempted, and there is a host of other exemptions, such as ringtones and other nonprofit uses and even work-for-hire where rights are given up. Do I get a mountain royalties if my piece is played on the radio or cable or broadcast television? Nope -- unless my piece is caught in the random surveys used to determine royalty amounts; despite hundreds of broadcast performances in 20 years (including a repeated feature on the Discovery Channel), no piece of mine has every had the good fortune to be surveyed. Yes, I get royalties from outside the U.S., such as my $2.95 from Taiwan last month. Stunning. I'll be driving to a performance of a big orchestral work in January, a six-hour round-trip. My royalty for that performance will be about $100.

      ASCAP collects these royalties for me, and I don't pay for that privilege. They do the work, take a very small percentage, and I get the occasional check. They lose money on me and probably the majority of their composers. Are they crazy sometimes? Sure, like when they wanted royalties from the Girl Scouts for singing "Happy Birthday". But that crazy is also a reminder that there are performance rights granted in law and managed for many composers by their membership in groups like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and their international counterparts.

      Could I do it myself? Sure, if I wanted to locate performances in Finland or Portugal or Belgium or Tulsa or Grand Rapids, and send a bill. But I am happy that ASCAP does that for me and I can keep working as an artist.

      Most composers are in this position. You don't know their work as a big stage act, but you hear it in concert halls or small venues or as part of documentary films/videos or on public radio.

      That's where those licensing fees come from, and they go through licensing representatives who work for us individual composers.

      Dennis

    2. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by Kalvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Artists are 'worth the effort' if their art is worthwhile. This is always a conundrum, as 'popular' and 'worthwhile' aren't the same thing, and certain don't always match the traditional economic model. ASCAP recognizes this disparity of value with special award funds provided annually to low-royalty, highly skilled artists (as record labels used to support their classical divisions). If art isn't your social priority, it isn't worth it to you, and you won't get this significance.

      But that's not the point I was making at all -- rather, that as artists grow in interest and gain performances, that investment is beneficial both economically and to society, and licensing agencies handle that paperwork and lower the stress level for both artists and venues (who would be negotiating song-by-song for live gigs rather than paying a blanket licenses).

      The NEA also tries to recognize this disparity between 'popular' and 'worthwhile' with their motto, "A great nation deserves great art." Unfortunately, they didn't quite get it right. A great nation MAKES great art. That's what we do as artists, and our agents help us live by our work.

      Dennis

    3. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think artists should be able to set the rates for their songs. If their song gets very popular they can slowly ratchet up the royalties and avoid being overplayed into oblivion. Modern technology makes this possible, we don't have to do it the way we have for a century. There would still need to be an organization such as ASCAP to operate the market, publish rates, and take tallies of songs played. Radio station software could show the royalties on each song and tally as they played. Juke boxes could store tallies and update rates on a different schedule.

      On the other hand, there will always be people cheating the system, current or proposed. Copyright needs to be adjusted to match society, not the other way around.

    4. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by Kalvos · · Score: 2, Informative

      The broadcast distribution was (is) a bookkeeping nightmare. I expect a change in the random survey as more logs are computerized, but I appreciate the scope of the problem, and recognize that ASCAP has been improving their technological toolset.

      Unlike the rest of the world where each piece is counted because of the relatively small number of broadcast outlets, consider that there are roughly 16,000 radio stations, 2,000 television stations, and 4,000 low-power stations in the U.S. generating 400,000+ hours of programming or some four million plays per day -- including songs, jingles, background music, etc. There is a massive amount of bookkeeping to acquire the composer and publisher information and appropriately divide and distribute the resulting pennies. You can imagine that doing this by hand, as has been the case for 85 years, would have made song-by-song crediting impossible.

      Also, note that ASCAP operated for most of its existence under a 1941 consent decree, and the court must approve any changes in collection and distribution systems.

      I know there's a developing standard number for recordings, but don't know if that also includes the title codes for the music.

      Considering the complexities of finding not only broadcast and cable performances but also live performances, last year ASCAP collected $930+ million in licensing fees and turned over $815+ million of that in royalties. That's a pretty low $115 million (11%) operating-expense ratio for an organization that needs enormous hands-on work and representatives in every state. Composers send in printed programs, lists of performances, etc., which are resolved for duplications, titles hunted down and matched. Tons of manual labor.

      Frankly, I would love it if it were possible to get to that automated crediting before I die. That unsurveyed Discovery Channel music alone is worth a good chunk, along with thousands of plays I've had worldwide.

      Dennis

    5. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by Kalvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, without getting too personal (this is Slashdot, after all), I'll say that I'm both a composer and a publisher member of ASCAP (my one-person company publishes the works of four composers). It is all tied together so that without ASCAP, there is no network of resources to provide income (I'm not an academic). Those royalties, my paper score and recording sales, an annual award, commissions for new compositions, music engraving (computer typesetting) and recording/restoration make up my income. Some years performances are good, but last year performances (mine and the other three composers) were few because the economy kicked our butts, and I know already royalties this quarter won't be the majority of my income.

      The IRS considers my income from composition.

      Dennis

    6. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by Kalvos · · Score: 2, Informative

      The aggregate figures are published in their annual report. The "composers, authors and publishers" in ASCAP's name receive about 88.5% of what they collect. There have been years we've both made money and others in which 11.5% of my royalties wouldn't buy a decent weekend near their offices on New York's Lincoln Plaza.

      Dennis

    7. Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights by Kalvos · · Score: 2, Informative

      AC, you clearly don't know me (or maybe even my previous /. posts on the topic, or my homepage).

      ASCAP often gets lumped in with the RIAA (and now Mussolini? why not do a Godwin on it?), and I was trying to provide a little background on ASCAP's "good side," which has helped me stay afloat as an artist in ways I couldn't do before in our relatively arts-hostile society and economy. ASCAP hardly does everything right, but they are an organization with a relatively small budget (last year's $115 million working budget doesn't finance one medium-size Hollywood movie these days) and a history that stretches back to vaudeville and acoustic shellacs. They can be very slow to change -- especially as changes must go through the 1941 consent decree (somebody correct me if this has changed).

      No, I don't get the compensation I deserve because U.S. society doesn't put the same value on the creation of nonpop art/music as do other Western societies. There's no equipment tax that goes to composers, no large publicly supported agency that builds concert halls or provides public salaries to artists. But of the license fee "loaves" charged to venues and broadcasters, ASCAP lets me keep about 11 of my dozen loaves earned rather than your characterization of one in 12 (ever check out how much an agent charges?). They also give songwriting and film composition workshops, legal seminars, and dozens of other regional programs in support of artists' work. They had committees drawn from composer members dicussing Internet music options before there were MP3s to play. Their concert division head Fran Richard is absolutely fierce when it comes to defending composers.

      You clearly want me to tell you why ASCAP is screwed up or at least how they could improve. Oh, yeah, they certainly could. They could get their head out of the protectionist sand and be less confrontational about stupid little issues. They could move faster to encourage venues and broadcast/cable outlets to modernize their reporting (and make it more accurate) so the random surveying could be dumped. They're finally getting their online licensing in some sort of decent shape, reducing the paperwork all around. Heck, I'd like to see them raise the licensing fees!

      On the other hand, what seem like small issues (arcades, ringtones, bars, Girl Scouts...) are actually a process of defining what constitutes a public performance. The issue of piano rolls was once very important, and licensing those led to jukeboxes, radio, etc. So now virtual-world performances come into play, too. All of these stupid-sounding behaviors are defenses of the artists' rights put into motion -- and yes, some are really stupid. But ultimately ASCAP and BMI are not working for corporate interests (as the RIAA is) but rather artists' interests. That's why we join (and go through a process of evaluation to be accepted).

      So, AC, am I an artist? I've always supposed so, and worked hard as an arts advocate. I've fought against copyright extension, against the WIPO regulations, against tethered software, against hardware locks and DRM (even being one of the originators of "key escrow"). As an composer, I've written nearly 1,000 pieces. But you can find all that on my website.

      Dennis

  7. DDR is grey area as well. by wantedman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DDR is currently in a gray area, since it crosses the line between video game and jukebox. Especially if it's positioned in an area so everyone can watch it. There hasn't been a "ruling" one way or the other from ASCAP on it. There are complications, because a lot of DDR songs are unlicensed in the US or are original performances by Konami. GH is a better test case, which is probably why they're using it.

    --
    ~~~
    Click here, you know you wanna!
  8. Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry" by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They aren't the RIAA, but ASCAP plays by more or less the same rulebook as the RIAA and is every bit as odious. It just so happens that they have less reason to go after individuals and chase after businesses instead.

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  9. Re:Showing muscles to the little guy? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is ASCAP. That's what they do. They mostly hassle tavern owners. They collect for jukeboxes, radios, live music, even when the band only plays their own compositions and according to bar owners I know, they're almost as pushy as the Mafia, usint threats, coercion, every trick in the book. I was talking to one bar owner one day when a lady from ASCAP showed up to put the squeeze on him. She was HOT and she used it; you would have thought she was a hooker the way she played him.

    There was one bar here that actually went out of business because of ASCAP. He had no jukebox and hired folk bands; these bands played old folk music that was in the public domain, and ASCAP sued anyway. He wouldn't cave on principle and the legal costs bankrupted him and he lost his business.

    ASCAP is as evil as the RIAA.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  10. Legal reform needed by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was one bar here that actually went out of business because of ASCAP. He had no jukebox and hired folk bands; these bands played old folk music that was in the public domain, and ASCAP sued anyway. He wouldn't cave on principle and the legal costs bankrupted him and he lost his business.

    We need a law which says that once a judge has ruled that a corporation has brought a frivolous lawsuit against someone, anytime it sues someone in the future it needs to finance the other side's legal fees, and only gets the money back if the judge rules they deserve it.

    1. Re:Legal reform needed by AusIV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure I agree that what you suggest is the best approach (because it allows a corporation at least one frivolous suit before they have to start paying the other side's legal fees), but I definitely agree with the sentiment. Corporations with deep pockets shouldn't be able to force innocent people into settlements simply because it's too expensive to defend yourself - that's extortion.

      I think a better option than what you suggest would be if the defendant could file a motion for coverage of legal fees. The defendant would have to convince the judge that the plaintiff's deep pockets make prohibitively expensive to defend the case, and that without the other side footing the legal fees the fiscally responsible action of an innocent party would be to settle. If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, he may decide to award the defendant's legal fees back to the plaintiff. If you know you're liable, you'd still be inclined to settle rather than rack up legal fees you know you'll have to pay off, but if you're innocent you'd have a viable means to defend yourself.

    2. Re:Legal reform needed by AusIV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure I completely agree with your proposal, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. A party with deep pockets shouldn't be able to force an innocent party into a settlement by making it cost prohibitive to defend yourself - that's extortion by my book.

      I think a better alternative would be some kind of motion where a defendant can request that the judge order the plaintiff to pay legal fees. The defendant would need to be able to convince the judge that defending the suit is cost prohibitive and that an innocent but fiscally responsible party would be inclined to settle rather than defend against the suit. The judge could require the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees, and if the judge finds in favor of the plaintiff the legal fees may be awarded back as well. Someone who knows they're at fault would still be inclined to settle out of court, but someone who believes he is innocent would have a viable means of defending himself.

  11. Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry" by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try reading the wikipedia article that was cited. Or actually google "ascap ringtones".

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  12. Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry" by FinchWorld · · Score: 4, Informative

    You googled ASCAP and failed to find anything? Try looking at anything but the first result maybe? Hell even the third pointing to wikipedia gives it away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers#Criticism

    --
    "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
  13. Re:Join the Free Music Push by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

    I agree with your sentiment, but it doesn't apply as I mentioned in another comment; if your bar only hires folk bands who play public domain music and bands that create their own music, ASCAP will still put you out of business if you don't pay their extortion fees.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  14. Re:Showing muscles to the little guy? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have self-represented if I was going on principle, and had trial in front of a judge. This is a pretty basic argument: they're suing me for playing music they have no domain over. Their only argument could be that the live performers could play some AC/DC live; at which point, I'd point out that I have electricity, and could bring in a CD player and an AC/DC CD, so maybe they should sue anyone with an electric utility. The only arguments they have are ridiculous, and ridiculing them with competent logical counter-arguments in front of a competent judge is viable.

    The other thing to do is object to stupidity meant to load you with paperwork and keep you busy until you overrun some deadline on a court order to fill out papers/show evidence. It's not my job to show evidence for your case; demand solid evidence or have their case thrown out. Once their case fails, counter-sue (with lawyer) for harassment, citing that you successfully defended yourself against their legal firm (no, really, the only thing these people practice is lawing at you) by yourself because their argument was retarded and they were abusing the court system. Sue for maximum damages and push for fines for abuse of the court systems.

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
  15. Re:Join the Free Music Push by zotz · · Score: 2, Informative

    here is a small start:

    http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/viewer.playlist?playlistId=1184&memberId=6509
    http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/99982
    http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/113052
    http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/131695
    http://www.joshwoodward.com/music/
    http://www.bradsucks.net/music/
    http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
    http://ccmixter.org/playlist/browse/3464

    enjoy

    --
    FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  16. Re:Join the Free Music Push by zotz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perhaps the jamendo folks have some ideas on solutions to the problem you mention:

    http://pro.jamendo.com/en/product/background/offer

    "Get background music for your shop or business"

    granted they are speaking there of background music and not of a music event.

    but if not, this is an area to work on by people wanting to play new games.

    --
    FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  17. Re:Showing muscles to the little guy? by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He wouldn't cave on principle and the legal costs bankrupted him and he lost his business.

    That's a failure of the the way the US legal system works as well as the behaviour of ASCAP. In fact, if the US legal system had a loser pays system like most of the free world, it is unlikely that ASCAP would sue in the first place.

    --
    Listen to my latest album here
  18. Re:LONG Copyrights are a big part of the problem by Painted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would argue those are a little short- I would be happy with 24 years, or hell, anything shy of 50 years (maybe a 25 year with one extension if the author, and not his estate/corporate interest, desires). Software, on the other hand, should probably only have a 10 year copyright, at least until the pace of technological advance slows down massively. At that point we could revisit software copyrights...

    --
    http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
  19. Re:Showing muscles to the little guy? by oldhack · · Score: 2, Funny

    "She was HOT and she used it; you would have thought she was a hooker the way she played him."

    That's just bullshit. Unless you can corroborate with photos and video clips.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.