President Trump Signs Music Modernization Act Into Law (billboard.com)

President Donald Trump signed the Music Modernization Act (MMA) into law Thursday, officially passing what is arguably the most sweeping reform to copyright law in decades. From a report: The bill revamps Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act and aims to bring copyright law up to speed for the streaming era. These are the act's three main pieces of legislation:
1. The Music Modernization Act, which streamlines the music-licensing process to make it easier for rights holders to get paid when their music is streamed online.
2. The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings.
3. The Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act, which improves royalty payouts for producers and engineers from SoundExchange when their recordings are used on satellite and online radio (Notably, this is the first time producers have ever been mentioned in copyright law.).

What does all this mean? First, songwriters and artists will receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972. Second, the MMA will improve how songwriters are paid by streaming services with a single mechanical licensing database overseen by music publishers and songwriters. The cost of creating and maintaining this database will be paid for by digital streaming services. Third, the act will take unclaimed royalties due to music professionals and provide a consistent legal process to receive them. Further reading: Billboard.

Comments

Does this mean that sometime

[bobstreo]

the original music on WKRP will be restored?

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[J4]

If anything the MMA would make licensing costs go up. Also, on an unrelated note: I like how the post says "rights holders"... that really has very little to do with the artists.

Re: Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sticking with Head of the Class.

Re: Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a big fan of Dan "if she's less than 9 i want inside her" Shneider?

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut more than likely.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[HarrySquatter]

No. This law has no bearing on that at all. This law doesn't change the fact that the license expired for the music decades ago. CBS was always free to relicense they music, they just chose not to do so. Nothing about this law would unexpire that license.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[HarrySquatter]

Sorry, CBS should be MTM which was merged with 20th Century Fox.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Kyr Arvin]

Sorry, CBS should be MTM which was merged with 20th Century Fox.

It's ok, soon, all the media companies will merge (probably into Disney/Fox), and then one company will own all music and TV, making rights sales obsolete.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[CodeHxr]

It's ok, soon, all the media companies will merge (probably into Disney/Fox), and then one company will own all music and TV, making rights sales obsolete.

Wasn't there a movie with a somewhat similar premise? All the restaurants merged into Taco Bell or something like that?

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about "artists", it's the execs that are the real innovators /sarcasm

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[F.Ultra]

And badly dubbed over with Pizza Hut over here in Europe :), Demolition Man.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Demolition Man.

I remember an old Scifi story where all the music was locked up. The new artistic express outlet was using scents instead of sounds to produce the symphonies of the day.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair they are a bit more creative, even if it happens to be with the truth and accounting instead of lyrics and melodies.

Re: Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on whether artists sign their rights away, usually for a price. Back in the day, there was unfair leverage in that you either signed with a label or you got nothing. Today there are so many means of publishing your item music that this isn't quite the case anymore. The reason you may want a label is that they will pay all of your advertising costs, use their connections, and bribe the right people at the Grammies, in order to expose you to a wider audience. You may come out on top due to the sheer volume of sales that brings to you than if you had gone it alone.

Re: Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

They walk away with the larger share of profit. It would be nice if their friends and family pointed out how unsavory that business is.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the "artists" really aren't much more than a face. All of the music is composed by someone else and played by a computer. The lyrics are written by someone else too and the "artists" voice is tweaked heavily in editing so it doesn't sound like complete ass.

They are basically one step above Milli Vanilli.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Rick Schumann]

"rights holders"
You're right there, the game for decades has been to swindle actual creators out of the rights to their own creations. Even people who self-produce, self-publish, and self-distribute, unless they're damned careful (and even then) get their own IP ripped out from under them. Don't even bother trying to produce something and place it in the public domain, the same thing will happen, some company will 'claim' it and you'll have no rights whatsoever to your own creation.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[Solandri]

I like how the post says "rights holders"... that really has very little to do with the artists.

We already have the tools today for artists not to sell their soul to record companies. Anyone can set up their own website, upload their own music to YouTube, sell albums on iTunes and the Amazon and Google equivalents. The MMA doesn't change that. It's just a matter of wannabe rock stars taking the risk of doing it on their own, instead of wanting to be handheld through the music production process by a studio who will in return rob them blind.

Re:Does this mean that sometime

[parkinglot777]

If anything the MMA would make licensing costs go up. Also, on an unrelated note: I like how the post says "rights holders"... that really has very little to do with the artists.

Well, according to WikiPedia, the "rights holders" or "owners" of streaming musics are those who hold "mechanical license". If you look at the meaning of mechanical license, you should find that it is NOT really artists but rather song writers/composers! The artists (performances) seem to be under a different license...

Re: Does this mean that sometime

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is a paedophile.

Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

With the improved economy, more jobs for all, and better deal for music artists (what we've all been clamoring for), we need to distract and blame Trump for something evil, or people might start catching on.

Re:Keeps getting better

[slack_justyb]

better deal for music artists

In all fairness, this bill has been worked on since Bush II days, around 2006-ish. The current President has done literally little to secure the passage of this outside his signature. In fact, both Bush and Obama have done little for this as well. This whole effort has mostly been decided between private parties and a few key congressional representatives.

It's almost like people forget that important law takes years, compromises between a multitude of interested parties, and bipartisanship. But yeah, forget all that, let's wax superiority on how my team is better than yours. *eyeroll*

Re:Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

With the improved economy, more jobs for all, and better deal for music artists

Now on top of everyone who doesn't honor copyright law, there will be even more people not honoring copyright law.
Piracy will go way up and artists will make less, both the scam artists AND the legit artists alike.

That doesn't sound like a better deal to me.

Re: Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

A pity consumers are never considered one of the "interested parties".

Re: Keeps getting better

[JackieBrown]

In fairness, Congress is suppose to be the representatives of consumers while listening to the input from interested third party experts.

Re: Keeps getting better

[bugi]

In fairness, Congress is suppose to be the representatives of consumers while listening to the input from interested third party experts.

s/consumers/CITIZENS/

Re:Keeps getting better

[thomst]

TFS (and, undoubtedly, TFA from which it's cribbed) quotes some music industry flack thusly:

better deal for music artists

Prompting slack_justyb to point out:

In all fairness, this bill has been worked on since Bush II days, around 2006-ish. This whole effort has mostly been decided between private parties and a few key congressional representatives.

It's almost like people forget that important law takes years, compromises between a multitude of interested parties, and bipartisanship.

The fact is that this law is a better deal for artists.

It's also a better deal - a much better deal - for record companies, and "rights holders" (which includes both "descendents who had nothing to do with writing or recording the works on which they're going to be paid royalties," and "people who bought the publishing rights to dead artists' back catalogues" and their descendents, etc.). But that's a baby/bathwater thing. Pay the actual artists more than a tiny fraction of a cent for their work, and those other folks will, inevitably, also get paid.

What this legislation does - beside the copyright extensions that got tacked onto it - is to increase royalties for digitally-streamed music significantly. That's a way-overdue acknowledgement that the method by which popular music is ephemerally distributed to consumers has drastically changed since the days when the only choices were AM or FM. Those 20th-century distribution technologies are increasingly obsolete, and I wouldn't bet on them still being around a decade or two from now (because RF bandwidth is increasingly precious).

Under the old legal framework, radio stations paid a per-play royalty on every song they broadcast - to the performing rights organization which represents the songwriter(s) and publisher of those songs. Performers got zilch (unless they were performing live, and the radio station was broadcasting their performance - it's all very messy and complicated). Each PRO (the two bigs are BMI and ASCAP) calculates its own formula for distributing them, and each PRO takes a rake-off, which, theoretically, pays for its direct expenses to collect, administer, and distribute those royalties.

Now a new administering body will be created to collect and distribute royalties for streaming plays. (Yay?) But - and this really is new and improved - the organization that collects and distributes royalties for which no payee can be located will be controlled by artists, not PROs. That means no more giant, largely-unaccountable slush funds which generally benefit only those PROs. In the new regime, that slush fund will belong to (and, at least theoretically, be accountable to) the artists themselves.

So - just maybe - this will mean a better deal for artists, because (again, in the absence of a functionting administrative body - which has yet to be created), in theory, it will mean the end of the kind of "Hollywood accounting" that for decades has routinely screwed so many working songwriters out of any significant payout for recordings of the music they wrote.

(Full disclosure: I am a songwriter, and a member of ASCAP. I have never seen a dime in royalties for my work, though - and, at this point, I probably never will. Nonetheless, I think this is an improvement over the previous system. I do not, however, approve of the Disney-authored extension of copyright term to the life of the artist plus 90 years. I think it's reasonable that an artist's surviving spouse benefit from his/her work for a relatively-short period after he/she dies, because it is routinely the case that sales of a popular artist's work see a significant - most often short-term - post-mortem boost. If you've ever known or been the spouse of a professional musician, you'll understand the sacrifices that relationship entails, and that loyalty deserves to be rewarded. Without it, there's many a songwriter who would have had to give it up, and get a "real" job, instead ... )

Re:Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

Your president signed this bill into law. Like seriously, why do you Trump cultists always try to find an excuse for messed up shit he does? Like any shitty policy he endorses and personally pushes is always somehow Ovamas fault. Obama hasn't been presdent for a few years now and Republicans have controlled Congress and the Senate for close to a decade.

Why is it so hard to accept that none of these people represent your real interests? Oh yeah that's right because they and their propaganda keep telling you they are the White mans candidates.

Maybe one day you will realize Brown innigrants stent the enemy, poor Black people aren't the enemy, Gay men and Women are not the enemy -. The people fucking you up the ass are the wealthy and they will continue to make you think it is everyone else as they have since the beginning of time.

Re:Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, both Bush and Obama have done little for this as well.

You mean they both refused to sign it since it is so obviously corrupt?

A law takes time to push through, but you only have to succeed once to get it to stay forever.

Re:Keeps getting better

[Rick Schumann]

Trump takes credit for all sorts of things he has literally nothing to do with. For instance lately he took credit for the economy recovering and the record low unemployment figures, neither of which he has done anything to affect, it takes literally years and years for changes made to affect things like that. It's more 8 years of Obama that we're seeing the effects of now, not 2 years of pussy-grabber.

Re:Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new to how politics work. Presidents have been taking credit for things they didn't accomplish for generations. They also blame the last guy for everything that goes wrong if they think they can get away with. Obama was no different in that regard. The only difference was that he had one additional thing to blame things on, people being racist. Anything he proposed that didn't get the support he wanted was because people where racist. It worked for him, sadly.

Re:Keeps getting better

[IGnatius T Foobar]

You keep on parroting that party line, commie. Obama's failed economy was the direct result of his over-regulation, and Trump's strong economy is the direct result of his deregulation. But go ahead and focus on "muh feelz" if it makes you feel better.

Re:Keeps getting better

[HiThere]

Garbage. Under the old system if I bought a record I could play it over and over until the groves wore out. With the streaming you're supposed to pay each time you listen to it. If this is a better deal for the artists (dubious) it's only because the price has been jacked up for the benefit of all the parasites.

Re:Keeps getting better

[HiThere]

I'm okay with Trump being blamed for this, but that's just because I dislike him. Honestly if you dug I bet you'd find more Democrat influence than Republican, because it's usually the Democrats bowing to the media companies.

Re:Keeps getting better

[Anonymous Coward]

Now a new administering body will be created

Hooray for small government!! Hip, hip, hooray!!

AC

Re:Keeps getting better

[terrycarlino]

Yep Trump had nothing to do with the economy recovering. It's just a coincidence that the recovery started the day after he was elected.

Or it could be that the economy often runs on a combination of the reality of the economic engine and the hopes and aspirations of all those involved in the economy, from consumers to business owners to stock owners, and all of those people suddenly became hopeful now that they knew the economy crushing policies of the Democratic party were at an end.

So you're right Trump alone did not cause the economy to recover. The ouster of Obama. The failure to elect Clinton. The loss of both houses of congress by the Democrats. These are what caused the economy to initially recover. The subsequent loosening of regulations by Trump appointees are what sustained most of the recovery.

Had Clinton been elected and the Democrats controlled Congress I have no doubt the economy would still be in a malaise and unemployment among all groups, particularly minorities would still be at an all time high.

Re:Keeps getting better

[thomst]

HiThere snorted:

Garbage. Under the old system if I bought a record I could play it over and over until the groves wore out. With the streaming you're supposed to pay each time you listen to it. If this is a better deal for the artists (dubious) it's only because the price has been jacked up for the benefit of all the parasites.

Did you even bother to read my post?

This new authority and royalty structure has nothing to do with music-for-purchase. If you want to buy music for your own collection, you can still do that from a number of sources: CDs, digital download services (as opposed to digital streaming services, which is what TFS and my post address), or, in many cases, direct from the artists themselves. This legislation imposes no barriers whatsoever to your purchase, nor does it have anything to do with purchased music. Full stop.

What it does accomplish is to put the collection and administration of songwriter royalties from streaming service plays on a more equal basis with the existing royalty structure for broadcast radio. Full stop.

Tell me: do you rail about how listening to the fucking radio deprives you of the right to own the music it broadcasts?

No?

Then you have zero basis to complain about this new legislation somehow depriving you of that right. It doesn't.

Full stop.

Re:Keeps getting better

[Rick Schumann]

Trollololol.

Re:Keeps getting better

[Rick Schumann]

blah blah blah HILLARY blah blah blah OBAMA blah blah blah DEMOCRATS blah blah blah

You idiots are like a broken record. Eat a bag of dicks.

Re:Keeps getting better

[HiThere]

Perhaps I'm cynical, but it used to be that when I bought a computer game I didn't need to have a server active to play it. Now, even single user play, when available, requires activation which can be disabled whenever the vendor gets tired of supporting the game. To me this looks like setting up music to work the same way.

Re:Keeps getting better

[thomst]

HiThere insisted:

Perhaps I'm cynical, but it used to be that when I bought a computer game I didn't need to have a server active to play it. Now, even single user play, when available, requires activation which can be disabled whenever the vendor gets tired of supporting the game. To me this looks like setting up music to work the same way.

Perhaps that's because you don't understand - and apparently don't wish to understand - that this has nothing whatever to do with controlling where you, as a consumer, get your music. And, since you're not a songwriter, you don't grasp the economics of songwriting as a profession - and appear to be resistant to learning anything about the subject.

I say that, because I've already twice explained what this legislation does and does not do from a consumer perspective, and yet you insist on changing the subject, while pretending that we're talking about the same issue.

We're not. We haven't been. And I'm unwilling to continue to discuss this "threat" you claim to perceive that has nothing whatever to do with the legislation about which TFS and my original post were concerned.

Do the record companies wish they could do away with the illusion of consumers "owning the music" they purchase copies of? I'm sure they do. But they haven't managed to do so in more than 100 years of recorded music's history, and I see no signs that they'll succeed in doing so any time soon, regardless of how much money Disney bestows on politicians around the globe. I say that, both because the music industry's major players aren't making any effort to impose such a model on their customers, and because those major players are not the only players in the marketplace.

There are indie labels, artist-owned labels, and collectives aplenty out there, too. And they know better than to try - because attempting to take the music they "own" away from their own customers is an excellent way to drive those customers away. (The fact that those customers own copies of the music those players' artists produce, doesn't in any way mean they own the music itself. That has always firmly remained the property of the labels, publishers, and artists themselves - or rather, it's theirs until their copyrights expire and it enters the public domain. That's what "copyright" means: the right to make and sell copies. And, just as you can own and enjoy the right to resell a copy of a work - including a musical recording - doesn't mean you have any rights whatsoever to the actual music itself.)

The underlying composition belongs jointly to the songwriter(s) and his/her/their publishing company. That's a legacy of the 19th century, when the only way music was or could be distributed to consumers was in the form of sheet music and/or player piano rolls. Then commercial radio came along, and new legislation was adopted to ensure that songwriters and their publishers continued to be able to make money from their work, even as sheet music sales declined to the point of near-irrelevance. In the 21st century, the distribution models have changed again - but the central problem remains: how to ensure that songwriters will continue to be paid for their work, so that they can afford to continue to write songs for a living.

Royalties for public performance and recording are still the solution to that problem. The question then became: how to collect and distribute those royalties in the new age of streaming, where broadcast radio is in steep decline, because Internet-based streaming has siphoned off its customers. This legislation attempts to answer that question in a way that's fairer than the previous attempt turned out to be. It does not in any way affect the actual ownership of the songs themselves, because that hasn't changed. All it does is create a legal framework for a mechanism to ensure that songwriters, publishers - and now producers, as well - get paid for their work.

One thing I'm pretty sure you don't understand at al

Re:Keeps getting better

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Butthurt much, NPC?

Considering how the music industry has treated Tru

[Anonymous Coward]

Iâ(TM)m surprised he didnâ(TM)t wipe his ass with this bill and flush it down the toilet.

First Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Natalie Portman Naked & petrified! Mae Ling Mak!

Re:First Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too old.

Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

Life plus 70 years sure is great isn't it?

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[samdu]

Keith Richards.

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time music and other works come out of Copyright they'll be in a box in someone's attic or basement and get discarded as junk. Culture and heritage will disappear like nobodies business thanks to greed.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will live on in the computers of pirates - people who love culture more than they fear the law.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha! True

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

Life plus 70 years sure is great isn't it?

Well, in the best scenario, a bunch of descendants and family members who want to be paid for stuff they didn't contribute to and shouldn't be receiving money for ... in the worst case, the agents/music companies who appropriated ownership of this stuff and will get paid and pad out corporate profits.

This law would never have happened if it didn't also prop up the corporations which will profit from it, you can be sure of that.

Mostly I question if this will take away the ability for artists to say "no, you can't use my music because you're an asshole", because it sounds like this would just be an automatic licensing thing that the creators have no control over. The use of the term 'mechanical' sounds like it's just an automated process.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[XXongo]

Hmm, compensating artists for pre-1972 recordings? All I can say is, if you go chasing rabbits, you know you're going to fall.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good but I'm thinking of the stuff that doesn't get saved. Like all those lost episodes of Dr. Who from years ago.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[sconeu]

Come on now.... if Elvis doesn't get paid for all those pre-'72 recordings, how will he ever write more songs?

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[shayd2]

Why alive? Wouldn't estates get the money?

I'm going to put in for Thomas Edison

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[lgw]

C'mon now. Elvis was killed in a car crash in the 90s. It was on the front page of the Weekly World News.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[XXongo]

C'mon now. Elvis was killed in a car crash in the 90s. It was on the front page of the Weekly World News.

Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead..

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly I question if this will take away the ability for artists to say "no, you can't use my music because you're an asshole", because it sounds like this would just be an automatic licensing thing that the creators have no control over. The use of the term 'mechanical' sounds like it's just an automated process.

"Mechanical" refers to "Mechanical Royalty" which has existed for a very long time. It's a royalty paid on the sale of physical media (vinyl lp, cd, cassette, etc), which is apparently now being expanded to included streaming and digital sales.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[JackieBrown]

It's a different world now. It is much less likely for that to happen now that everyone and their mother can store a copy

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[HarrySquatter]

You think all artists recording music before 1972 are dead? You're kidding right?

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[No Longer an AC]

I'm hoping Led Zep will finally have to pay Randy California for Stairway to Heaven.

Then surely Spirit will get back together.

I guess the worst part about that was they waited until he was dead to file a lawsuit. (But it's not about the money, is it?)

Maybe there is hope after all:

Led Zeppelin ordered to go back on trial in 'Stairway to Heaven' copyright lawsuit

And maybe a record company can finally successfully sue John Fogerty for sounding too much like John Fogerty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's like the opposite of that time Neil Young got sued for not sounding enough like Neil Young.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[youngone]

Like all those lost episodes of Dr. Who from years ago.

That had nothing to do with copyright
The tapes were wiped for reuse, because videotape was expensive.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[dk20]

This!.. too bad i didnt have mod points..

the reason for copywrite was to encourage artists.. if they are dead, do they still need "protection and encouragement"? this is pretty much the only industry where your kids, and grandkids can sit around and collect your cheques.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[currently_awake]

There is no cost to the record companies in extending copyright terms. It's free money for them, minus the small payment to politicians every 20 years for another extension.

Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties?

[mjwx]

Keith Richards.

Keith Richards died 20 years ago... Its just that nobodys told him.

Kanye West

[Anonymous Coward]

Was interesting to see him called a "stupid negro" by CNN.

Interesting that they don't pronounce it like the spanish, starting with "nay"

They don't pronounce it like the word from slave times - "nee"

It's very much "nih". The first half of the word they say is spelled N-I-G.

The second half of he word, instead of G-E-R, is G-R-E.

Pretty clever for the "even though we only see race, totally not racist" Democrats. No republican could ever dog whistle so effectively.

Who says the left cant meme? Stupid negroes who dont know how to read probably!

Preen

[Anonymous Coward]

So Glad he is finally fulfilling that campaign promise. I heard he has been working into the late hours every night for weeks to get this bill language perfect, and using his polite and positive personality working with congress to get it approved.

70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Camel Pilot]

Not mentioned in the synopsis is that Copyright and royalties are extended a ridiculous length of time beyond the life of the artist.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright needs to be reduced to 5 years, no extensions allowed for any reason! The original intent of copyright was to allow the author/artist to profit for a few years from their work before it became public domain. Disney and many others have bought legislation that has extended copyright to totally insane lengths of time. Copyright was never meant to keep works out of the public domain for the life of the author/artist, much less 70 years past that person's death!! Those who have purchased the current copyright laws, have done so only to profit for many decades from the works of others, as the author/artist rarely owns the rights to their works any more.

The totally insane length of copyrights is detrimental and damaging to society as a whole in too many ways to list here!

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Johnberg]

So, if a 20 year old artist dies shortly after copyrighting work, the music is public domain 70 years later. If that artist lives to 90, that means the music is public domain 140 years later.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit from dead losers like XXXTeninication and lil peep will be copyrighted until 2088! All heil copyright uber alles.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[HarrySquatter]

If they're losers why do you care? Just avoid their music.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[cascadingstylesheet]

Not mentioned in the synopsis is that Copyright and royalties are extended a ridiculous length of time beyond the life of the artist.

Which was already the case ... wasn't it?

Are they seriously saying that pre 1972 music was royalty free or something, before this bill?

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[fermion]

Which is we should just call it the Beatles welfare Check act or 2018. After all we need to make sure a dusty old band members who haven’t done anything in nearly 50 year can still be rich by sucking on the teats of the dole.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

I think copyright has gotten out of control too, but by your 5 year theory, Tolkien would have lost his copyright on Lord of the Rings long before it ever became popular enough for him to profit off of writing it, and that hardly seems fair either. Maybe limit it to 5 years after the author/artist's death.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

You chose an oddly inappropriate example. The longest-inactive member of the band, John Lennon, died in 1980, fewer than 40 years ago, and actively produced albums in the 10 years before his death, so you can't really accuse him of having done nothing in 50 years even though he's been dead for most of that time. George Harrison died in 2001, and he was active in the 80s, so he produced more and more recently than Lennon did by default.

Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are still alive and making music today.

Re:70 years beyond the death of the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that they were royalty free in general, but due to a quirk of old contract boilerplate, changing technology and mercenary lawyers there was a loophole.

Problem was in those days an artist would sell the rights to the label and then get paid specific royalties for specific uses such as record sales, radio plays, soundtrack licensing, etc. The gottcha is the label retains the rights for *other* uses. At the time there was probably an assumption on all sides that these other uses would be pretty incidental, but then streaming came along. The labels were under no obligation to *pay* royalties for streaming these songs but was free to *charge* royalties, and proceeded to do so. A few artists tried unsuccessfully to sue for streaming royalties. And then we had a deadlock for nearly a decade and now you are all caught up.

Re: 70 years beyond the death of the artist

[cascadingstylesheet]

Ah, thanks anon!

Making a mockery of copyright

[DigitAl56K]

Why respect copyright, when nothing will ever enter the public domain any more? There was supposed to be a balance where copyright would be enforced until a work became old enough where upon it would enter the public domain. It now stands that upon your grave, works you enjoyed as a child and possibly paid for many times over throughout your life will still not be free when you die.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to find out the hard way that the harder you squeeze, the more that slips through.

They think now that streaming is mainstream they can start forcing things but in reality its going to push people back to wanting ownership, which is going to lead to more piracy.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

Agreed. Fuck 'em all. How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song? This is pure giveaways to corporate rightsholders. Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sorry. I thought you knew. You were lied to. Copyright was never intended to expire, they just needed a way to get congress to pass it.

And as time goes on, the tendency to extend the copyright lengths will only increase exponentially because quite literally the industry knows full well it has no chance of sustaining itself when the shit they pump out now pales in comparison to things pre-2000. And once that early stuff becomes public domain (which you shouldn't be expecting to, but let's just pretend we live in a make believe world of fairies and unicorns) people will stop buying the new shit and go download the now legal classics of long dead artists.

Re: Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm so happy the swamp is being cleaned and the old cronies put where they belong!

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are old enough to have created something that is still enjoyed many years later, come back to this

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[HideyoshiJP]

That's because people keep listing to all this old damn music! How are those poor record companies supposed to make any money off music by dead people?

Re: Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

Normally I'd admonish you about dragging Trump into a Slashdot story, but in this case it is both on-topic and well-deserved.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Nidi62]

Agreed. Fuck 'em all. How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song? This is pure giveaways to corporate rightsholders. Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people.

But...but...we need to make sure that musicians like The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Elvis Presley, The Mamas and the Papas, Janis Joplin, the Allman Brothers, and Aretha Franklin are incentivized to keep making music!

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Nidi62]

How are those poor record companies supposed to make any money off music by dead people?

"Holograms"?

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[westlake]

Why respect copyright, when nothing will ever enter the public domain any more?

The streaming music service has 30 million tracks + text and graphics. CD quality or close enough. One-click access. Local storage as an option. Access across all devices. If I value my time at minimum wage, why in the name of god would I want to go back to trying to dredge something useful out of the P2P nets?

Entry into the public domain doesn't guarantee preservation and without preservation access is meaningless. The problem isn't the bit rot that may erode your collection of MP3s, it is the decay that destroys primary sources. Conservation at that level is damned expensive but the geek never talks about that very much because he might be asked to help pay for it.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a software engineer who has created software that controls enormous amounts of infrastructure you rely on every day. I got paid once to do it. It paid my bills for about a year. I feel that's fair.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[suutar]

Why respect copyright, when nothing will ever enter the public domain any more?

The streaming music service has 30 million tracks + text and graphics. CD quality or close enough. One-click access. Local storage as an option. Access across all devices. If I value my time at minimum wage, why in the name of god would I want to go back to trying to dredge something useful out of the P2P nets?

No idea. What's that got to do with something being in the public domain? Are you assuming that Spotify won't carry popular stuff once it's public domain? If they want to leave that money on the table someone else will be willing to do it... and they'll be able to.

Entry into the public domain doesn't guarantee preservation and without preservation access is meaningless. The problem isn't the bit rot that may erode your collection of MP3s, it is the decay that destroys primary sources. Conservation at that level is damned expensive but the geek never talks about that very much because he might be asked to help pay for it.

Not being in the public domain doesn't guarantee preservation either, so I'm not sure what your point is. (Though now that you mention it, that seems like a reasonable responsibility to put on a rightsholder - a duty to preserve the work so that it can still be around to enter the public domain, either at the statutory time or when voluntarily released.)

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you moved to New Hampshire like I did you probably have zero real choices. Democrats and republicans are largely one and the same everywhere else in that they both vote authoritarian and in favor of more repression.

Even here in New Hampshire we largely have a very limited voice. It's just 20x better than any other state. Our ability to fight anti-freedom propaganda is growing, but it's still relatively limited. We haven't ended the police state. We've only attacked it and the war is on-going.

We can sometimes get laws through like the one that removed the authority of the banking department to regulate crypto currency businesses and we have certainly helped stop or undo some previously passed bad legislation/court decisions. Authorities can't just bust into peoples houses now without warrant like they can in most states (bad supreme court ruling made exceptions to the warrant required rule- and I'm not just talking emergencies). So it's not all doom and gloom- but New Hampshire is at best a last bastion of hope where people who want freedom have migrated together to organize such that there would be a place with some freedom would remain given everywhere else is a conservative or socialist authoritarian shit hole.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[markdavis]

>"How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song?"

+100

>"Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people."

Which people would that be?

The last MAJOR extension of copyright was the 1998 act signed by Bill Clinton (D) with an R congress (both houses). And before that was the MUCH more major 1976 act signed by Ford (R) with a D congress (both houses).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Not saying you are making a partisan accusation, but that is the climate nowadays. It seems likely that most politicians can be bought/pressured by the media giants, regardless of party (at least the two major ones), or time.

"Not voting for these people" is really pretty non-constructive because we have almost no choice to make. The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:

https://www.fairvote.org/

That is where I suggest people throw their energy/support if we really want meaningful choice, meaningful change, and meaningful power as voters. Otherwise we are just trapped voting against the one of the two that seems to suck the most or spoiling the vote by trying something different.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Rick Schumann]

Well then they give people like you and me an incentive to pirate music more, then they'll cry and whine about piracy, lobby and legislate tougher laws with more draconic penalties for pirating music (the definition of 'piracy' includes 'sharing' with people you know, by the way, even if money never changes hands), and they'll start kicking in more doors and confiscating more computers, arresting, trying, convicting, and incarcerating 'music pirates', who they'll then put in the ever-more-privatized prison system, where we'll all be sent for years and years to work as slave labor and be treated like we're serial murderers, denied proper medical care, and so on. The corporations, private prisons, and government will split the profits from our slave labor.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

Not saying you are making a partisan accusation

Quite the opposite. Both parties have their corporate masters and only play off us against one another on the "wedge issues" that don't actually matter that much in the longer arc of history.

The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:

I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party. Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United. Bernie Sanders is economically retarded, but he'd absolutely get my vote because a temporary setback in GDP growth is SO worth throwing the moneylenders out of the temple.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[markdavis]

>Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United.

Absolutely agree with that. Although they don't have to be "nutjobs", there are some really bright and sound people that would do well to work outside the two major parties. Plus, new parties could form that really aren't crazy, they just differ from the main R and D stances in important ways.

>"I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party

There is the problem. Voting so-called "third party" is almost always a 100% mistake. This is due to the "spoiler effect", which is not only real, but it is pretty bad. Essentially, due to our current system, voting outside the main R/D means your vote will actually hurt you- not only can you not win, but the vote will take away a vote from the candidate closest to who you would have voted for had you voted for one of the two main! It really, really sucks. You might have seen this stuff before, but check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I got paid once to do it. It paid my bills for about a year. I feel that's fair.

IOW, your boss paid a few thousand dollars for something he made millions from over 10 or 20 years. I think that's fair too.

Business people are making millions because they are ripping off programmers. If a company is making money off employees' code, they owe the programmers royalties (even if the programmers are no longer working for the company).

Every meal sold in a restaurant makes the chef some money. Every time a company sells a product or service that nets them profits, they owe a royalty to the chef (programmer). The current salary model is like the chef gets paid for one year and works for free for the next 9 years.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

is almost always a 100% mistake

Using the latest Presidential election as an example, a vote for Hillary or The Donald would get you no closer to reform*. You could stay away from the polls entirely, or you can at least register a protest of sorts. Stein was the only national candidate with an emphatic stance on overturning Citizens United. More people in the primaries voting for Sanders and, uh, Lindsey Graham... ahem, were the only way to get mainstream party reformers on the November ballot.

No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting.

*Hillary was technically "against" Citizens United, as was O'Malley... but only in words, really. Both said that they way they would fight it was by appointing judges who are against it. Legislating through the judiciary is a terrible idea because you aren't always the one appointing judges and the only recourse is to change the friggin' Constitution or wait 30 years for the courts to slowly turn over.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[markdavis]

>"No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting."

It is unlikely that either major party will support the fair vote because it weakens their own stranglehold on the country. It will have to be pushed through starting on the local levels, where parties don't matter much. This is already happening (although far too slowly). Then up to the State level. That is when things will start to really change. The States are mostly in control of how voting happens, not only for their own domain but also in Federal elections (thank goodness the founders were smart). Once the idea is understood, proven to work well on the local level, then proven again at the State, it won't take much push to unleash it for that State's Federal delegates (Congress) especially if it means matching voting style that the State's citizens are already accustomed. Other States will notice and it might start a good "infection". One can hope...

But it is just as important (if not more so) for the primaries within the parties. There are even signs there might be more acceptance to that than we thought. Had it been so, it is very unlikely we would have ended up with the two of most hated 2016 Presidential candidates in my memory (and probably much further back). This is so much more important than just one position, though.

>"Legislating through the judiciary is a terrible idea because you aren't always the one appointing judges and the only recourse is to change the friggin' Constitution"

That is by design. I really do tire of politicians (and judges) trying to "reinterpret" the Constitution, when in most cases, it is quite apparent what was meant by what was written and what the context was of the Founders. Oh, and of course, just ignoring the Constitution when it is inconvenient (especially the 10th Amendment).

There is a self-contained way to change the Constitution, through Amendment. And although some times it has worked out well, some Amendments have been pretty stupid (like the big 3: popular election of Senators, Federal income tax, prohibition).

There are only three Amendments I would like to see. The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue. The second would be a Presidential "line item veto". The third would be that laws cannot be passed denying rights/access/freedoms to/of adults of majority age (for example, telling an 18-year-old they can vote, own property, die for their country, etc.... but not drink or not buy a handgun; in the private sector often even renting a car). Personally, I think that should be combined with raising the age of majority to 20, at which age NO rights can be restricted- seems logical at this point.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue.

I also want a balanced budget amendment, but I think there should be a little more flexibility. I was thinking that the infrastructure borrowing can be a "good" kind of debt, and that the restrictions should be based on something like a 5 year average to allow extra spending during recessions. Exceeding the limits should result in automatic, across-the-board cuts in spending split evenly with increases in revenue. That would discourage either side from using the automatic system as a political tool.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire system was build from the constitution on up to protect the ruling class and their property from popular democracy. Worrying about Citizens United is just deck chairs on the Titanic stuff: one of those wedge issues you are talking about.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

No, it's really not. It's an expansion of the limited liability corporation - something that was invented for economic reasons well after the country's founding. Yes, the concept existed - but it was used for things like building bridges and such. The jump to corporate personhood is major... the same advantages of scale are now applied to the political sphere. This is not a minor change.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[GLMDesigns]

For all practical purposes Donald Trump was a Third Party Candidate running from within a major party. You don't need to be a fan or supporter to see that. His fans wanted to curtail Imperial Washington. In that I support them.

If you think Citizens United is bad then so are International Courts and treaties that degrade constitutional protections.

The closer power is to you - the citizen which is effected the more you have an ability to control it.

States should have more power. The Federal Government should have less and international bureaucracies should be pared back to ohhh (approaching zero).

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[GLMDesigns]

This is absurd. You get paid for the job produced. Do you owe your plumber every time you flush the toilet? No. You pay him to fix the fuking toilet.

Thankfully the company makes money else there would be no company and no jobs.

What you're arguing for is piece meal payment for work rendered. Do you really want that? You work. You get paid. Say you get paid $10,000 for work you did for a month. You say that's bad.

Now you want to get paid when the company makes a profit on your code. When is that? Sometimes there isn't a profit. You've just become a business partner. That's fine if you want it but most employees don't. Know you'll have even more incentive to only work on projects that produce profits NOW.

You really didn't think this one through now did you?

Oh. You want to be paid AND get royalties. OK. How does that work? Figure out a good model and I would gladly work for that company. Right now - I want my money now. No fuking IOUs.

Re:Making a mockery of copyright

[MightyYar]

For me, the problem of balancing local and state power is a bit removed from whether non-humans should be granted free speech rights. It's a complicated issue with lots of nuance (e.g. freedom of "the press" when the press is a corporation), but I think that it's reasonable for congress to set the rules for corporate speech. After all, corporations only exist at the pleasure of the government via their charter.

Perhaps something can be done through tax law, similar to how churches are treated in a tax-advantaged way. Offer a type of IRS designation for corporations which do not engage in political activities. This doesn't curtail union money, but there might be a novel strategy there as well.

This doesn't modernize shit about copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the entire premise of this legislation is to enrich record companies more.

Re:This doesn't modernize shit about copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is the best modernization of music law ever passed in the history of the nation!

What's wrong with you, Trump-hater?

Re:This doesn't modernize shit about copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. They spent a lot of lobby money to get precisely that result. If you don't like it, you must spend your money on an opposing lobby.

Re:This doesn't modernize shit about copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If more musicians listened to Frank Zappa, they would retain the publishing rights to their music, instead of giving it away to corporate america in exchange for a handful of magic beans.

Re:This doesn't modernize shit about copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything now a days is to get somebody rich... specially if it has to do with politics....

Re:This doesn't modernize shit about copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhhh - nobody is supposed to realize that this bit of legislative sophistry is just another way to funnel $$$ to the ultra rich and the corporations they own. They do not really care about the folks who created the music, just those who "own the rights," which is almost never the actual artists who wrote, produced or performed. The "rights" to a given work are commodities these jerks regularly trade after obtaining them through obfuscated contracts that pay almost nothing.

FGailzors!?

[Anonymous Coward]

everyday...We it has to b3 fun Creek, abysmal to deliver what,

Disney called...

[atrex]

Congress owes Disney royalties for stealing it's copyrighted ideology on extending copyrights. RIP "Public Domain"

Face it, this was inevitable

[SuperKendall]

Never is the truth of the fact there are not really different political parties more evident than in a bill like this.

The headline here said "President Trump Signs" but who among you would claim it would be any different had Hillary been elected?

This kind of unstoppable ratcheting down of government power is what really turns people off from getting involved in politics, because it doesn't matter who you support there will be no real difference in results of things that matter.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: Republicans control the Senate

Fact: Republicans control the House

Fact: The Republican controlled Congress passed it.

Fact: Trump, the Republican President, signed it.

Fact: Republicans blame Hillary for it anyway.

She lost. Get over it.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[SuricouRaven]

True, Republicans can be blamed for this. But had Democrats been in charge, nothing would have played out differently. One reason copyright is never an issue in elections is that both parties hold exactly the same position on it.

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[squiggleslash]

The headline here said "President Trump Signs" but who among you would claim it would be any different had Hillary been elected?

Probably no-one, it's been an embarrassing feature of lefty politics that the mainstream left-of-the-loony-right party in the US has a habit of signing any copyright extension laws that come its way.

But this at least confirms that the right are no different. Any Internet Libertarian who hangs their hat on the "At least the Republicans aren't in the pocket of the Mouse" argument has a clear and compelling example in front of them that, actually, yes they are. The DMCA was bi-partisan. This extension goes beyond that, being confirmed by a 100% Republican controlled Congress (that is, both House and Senate), signed by a Republican President, and highly unlikely to be toppled by a Republican SCOTUS that just moved from "Leans Republican" to "What comes around goes around" anti-Democrat.

If you want to reign in the copyright extensions, you're going to have to find a different route than changing which party you vote for.

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[93 Escort Wagon]

The headline here said "President Trump Signs" but who among you would claim it would be any different had Hillary been elected?

Hillary, no. Obama, yes.

If Obama were still in office, his signature on this law would slope differently because he is left-handed.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes indeed. And we'll have no one else to blame for the mess we're into.

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[SuperKendall]

But this at least confirms that the right are no different.

I think there was plenty of prior confirmation of that fact but I totally agree, this just re-enforces that point to the nth degree. Anyone with a real libertarian bent is ill-served by having any strong support for either major party.

If you want to reign in the copyright extensions, you're going to have to find a different route

Here's where I disagree - distressingly, I do not think there is such a route (the "inevitable" part of my original subject) and so seeking it is folly. :-(

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[GoTeam]

Before you go spew useless "facts", start with the most important fact, no one in congress opposed this bill from either party (https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8475876/music-modernization-act-passes-senate-unanimous-support). The party of the current president, senate majority, or house majority made no difference. Every level of government failed on this one.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[JackieBrown]

Fact, Democrats controlled the presidency when DMCA passed.

Fact: Democrats voted for this bill.

The post you replied to wasn't blaming Hilary. The post was stating for matters like this, regardless of who is in power, the outcome is the same.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

True, Republicans can be blamed for this. But had Democrats been in charge, nothing would have played out differently.

DMCA - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.

NAFTA - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.

The anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.

The gutting of Glass-Steagall that eventually led to the financial problems of 2008-2009 - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[JackieBrown]

This is something definitely to be pointed to when people say we need more bipartisanship.

Not a single Republican or Democrat in the House or Senate voted against it

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Clinton (D) signed the Sonny Bono (R) Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to reign in the copyright extensions, you're going to have to find a different route than changing which party you vote for.

Or, you'll have to actually think about what party you should vote for, instead of continuing to support Republicrats.

Republicrats win every single election, every year, by a landslide. Even the accursed presidential race of 2016 was something like 95 to 5. But what people don't realize, is that the only way that party always wins every election is because almost everyone always votes FOR them. If people were to stop supporting the Republicrats, though, and vote AGAINST them, the numbers would be different.

You can reform copyright through voting, but you (and a lot of other people) would have to actually vote (for someone reasonable!), instead of just playing one side of the Republicrats against the other. Can you be bothered? Or would you prefer to preserve the status quo?

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[tlhIngan]

Fact, Democrats controlled the presidency when DMCA passed.

And Republicans controlled congress.

In fact, Bill Clinton may have been President, but at the same time, democrats lost Congress for the first time. (They've never regained it since). And since all bills pass through both the legislative and executive branches, well, both sides are at fault. Even if Clinton didn't sign the DMCA, congress could still enact it anyways

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[GonzoPhysicist]

you seem to be taking this one issue on which they agree and extrapolating that the two parties are the same in all regards. I find this rather disingenuous unless copyright is all you care about in life.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[JackieBrown]

I feel like you missed the point I was making. And all the democrats in office at the time voted for the DMCA so there is no reason to think the outcome would have been different with a Democrat run Congress.

for matters like this, regardless of who is in power, the outcome is the same.

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[No Longer an AC]

Meanwhile back in the real world, Hillary lost the election 2 years ago, but people are still going on and on about her whenever Trump does anything.

"But, Hillary...."

I'm reasonably certain she would have signed it too, but she didn't because she's not President.

You know who did sign it?

Donald Trump.

A lot of people say they voted for Trump because they believed he would be different.

Well, he is different.

Trump loves the spotlight so much he would have signed ANYTHING just to be seen with...

Kid Rock, The Doobie Brothers and The Beach Boys? Oh, and Kanye West too, of course.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[SuperKendall]

Yeah I meant to include that aspect (no votes against from either party) in my original post as well. Thanks for bringing it up.

Re:Face it, this was inevitable

[currently_awake]

When the Rich control government you end up with all the major political parties being right wing, as you see in the USA. Hillary Clinton is a right wing politician along the lines of George Bush or Barak Obama.

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[strikethree]

no one in congress opposed this bill from either party

But if you vote Democrat then the world will become a better place to live.

BOINK!

The cognitive dissonance of some people just blow my mind. (Yes, there are people who are saying brain-dead shit like that)

Re: Face it, this was inevitable

[Agripa]

The party of the current president, senate majority, or house majority made no difference. Every level of government failed on this one.

Why buy one party when you can have two for twice the price?

Kanye

[Anonymous Coward]

Luvs trump because he just made him richer. People suck, rich people suck more.

Re:Kanye

[Anonymous Coward]

And you suck the most because your nothing but a Jealous piece of shit. Waa, waa, waaa. Sniff, he/she has more then I have and ever will have. waaa, sniff, stomp. I want, I want, I want

Still organized crime, not working, stealing money

[Anonymous Coward]

The day that taking a song that somebody else made, putting it on the copier, and then charging both the artist and the recipient money, as if you had worked for it and made a song, and sue everyone who doesn’t "buy" a copy, and call him a sea-faring rapist thief, ...

is the day that I get to take somebody else's hard-earned $10,000 (you know, with actual work!), put them on the copier, and then make both that somebody and the one getting the funny money work hard for me, as if I had actually paid them, and sue everyone who doesn't throw himself at me to work for me for free, and call him a land-lubbing rapist thief! ... I have worked in the entire media Mafia, from music to TV to movies to games, and if you did too, you’d also know, that the entire madness stems from a shitload of cocaine, making them both super-over-confident, as empathically dead as a psychopath, and extremely paranoid. The entire set of "industries" is just an organized crime of leeches.

It has to be bad

[Anonymous Coward]

because Trump did it.

That is my whole point

[SuperKendall]

Fact: Hollowood (that was a typo but it amused me so I left it) generally hates Republicans.

So all of your facts are true, and my fact is true - would anything would be any different if Democrats were in charge of anything you mentioned? No.

If anything they would be even MORE favorable to the recording industry. As it was Republicans gave them everything they wanted in terms of horrific copyright extension.

I think you are confused that I am some kind of Hillary supporter; I am a for-real independent who is just sad there's not an actual party difference. Trump is only somewhat different because he's not really a Republican or a Democrat.

Wait a minute

[PopeRatzo]

I have AdBlock turned on, so why am I seeing this story?

Maybe this is the Slashdot equivalent of the Presidential Emergency Alert and the Manchurian Cantaloupe gets to push stories right to the top if he thinks it's something positive.

Don't anyone tell him that this is a terrible new law that pretty much puts the last nail in anything like public domain. After this, we'll never see another video game with music like that in the Fallout series. Trump is "making music great again", as evidenced by today's free-style session with a severely brain-damaged Kanye West impersonator (it might have been Andy Kaufman or Sasha Baron Cohen in a Kanye mask, though). We'll be paying royalties for music when every single human being involved in the creation of that music has died, and now for longer.

Trump Fucking over artists

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Trump isn't going to use music illegally at his rally's or has he built in a way to get around that?

Re:Trump Fucking over artists

[Oswald McWeany]

So, Trump isn't going to use music illegally at his rally's or has he built in a way to get around that?

He can legally pardon his event organizers if they get found to be using music illegally.

CLASSICS

[nuckfuts]

The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings.

Hopefully they put as much thought into the legislation as they put into devising a clever acronym.

EFF comments

[Anonymous Coward]

(from EFF July 26, 2018 post)

> January 1, 2019 will be the first time in twenty years that works in the United States will once again join the public domain through copyright expiration. A growing public domain means more access to works and the ability of other artists to build on what came before. And as we get closer and closer to finally growing the public domain, big content holders are going to push harder and harder to lock it all down again. CLASSICS is the first step in that direction.

> CLASSICS is a very bad bill that has been bundled with the largely-good Music Modernization Act (MMA).

> The situation is this: sound recordings didn’t used to be protected by federal copyright law. As a result, states came up with their own laws, creating a patchwork. Congress did eventually get around to bringing sound recordings under federal copyright law, but only for recordings made in 1972 and later. Older recordings remained under the old crazy quilt of state law. This meant they did not enter the public domain when they should have. State laws continue to govern the pre-1972 sound recordings until 2067. Music from World War I is locked under copyright until nearly the 150th anniversary of the war.

> CLASSICS doesn’t fix the problem of sound recordings being kept out of the public domain. What it does do is create a way for music labels—and some lucky recording artists—to collect money from streaming services for these recordings.

(EFF May 14, 2018 article)
> With this new law, for the first time, recordings made between 1923 and 1972 couldn’t be streamed on digital music services or Internet radio without a license, and failing to get one could leave the streamer liable for massive, unpredictable statutory damages. This makes it harder to archive older music and harder for fans of older music to stream it. It also doesn’t create any new incentives for artists to create new work.

(back to the first EFF article)
> CLASSICS leaves the current state copyrights in place, some lasting more than 144 years, while simultaneously creating a federal system to collect money that federal copyright might not entitle them to.

Re: Who is still alive to receive those royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. He flew off with aliens in a pink UFO with tail fins.

Why is this even legislation?

[shess]

It is dumb that this is even legislation. I can see legislation for things like "You can't use people's work without their permission", but it's weird that we have legislation determining things like how you communicate and track things. If the industry can't work that out amongst themselves, then the industry shouldn't be able to operate.

Three generation principle

[tepples]

For the past century, the copyright term is supposed to reflect the lifetime of those heirs who knew the artist personally. The article "The Copyright Term Red Herring" attributes the extension to updating the formula based on the fact that people are living longer and reproducing later.

Re:Three generation principle

[Anonymous Coward]

For the past century, the copyright term is supposed to reflect the lifetime of those heirs who knew the artist personally.

Nope.

Originally copyright was to protect book publishers.
The longer extensions that are more recent where to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into public domain.

The only thing copyright ever had to do with artists was that they have been used as an excuse to turn copyright into som bastardization of what it originally was.
Not that there were any good intentions behind it to begin with.

Pay the performance, stream = advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Before recordings, artists were paid for the performance. Technology gave a "middleman" some $, and then they got greedy. Now everyone is greedy. REcording and Streaming = ADVERTISING, nothing more. If the artist is good, go pay $ to see them. That is how the industry should work. All this crap about royalties is just that: crap.

99.9% of musicians retain their copyright

[raymorris]

99.9% of musicians DO retain their full rights, and don't sign over anything to record companies.

Of course, record companies aren't going to spend millions of dollars promoting an album they don't own / can't sell exclusively. Heck they won't even spend a million producing an album that they don't have exclusive rights to.

Therefore, 99.9% of artists can be found on Myspace and YouTube, not in the Columbia rack at Best Buy.

Re:99.9% of musicians retain their copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, 99.9% of artists can be found on Myspace and YouTube, not in the Columbia rack at Best Buy.

Not a fan of live music are you.

Re:99.9% of musicians retain their copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

99.9% of musicians DO retain their full rights,
and don't sign over anything to record companies.

That is a patently false statement. Unless the Artist publishes their work
as well, they lose those "Artist's" rights. And I've seen a few of those
agreements between an Artist and a "Rights' Holder". It's sickening.

Letters of Intent, all of those things are designed to cheat the Artist.
Only a few bands have had the smarts to survive the label's cheats --
Michael Jackson is the most notable. The Rolling Stones is another.

CAP === 'unfold'

Re:99.9% of musicians retain their copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA claims the right to collect royalties for all artists on the Internet via sound exchange.

True, but what are we going to do about it

[rsilvergun]

I don't see it as an important enough issue to change votes. I'd like to think that the large number of anti-consumer, pro-corporate laws that keep getting passed (arbitration, tax cuts for the 1%, cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, etc) would have an impact but so far it hasn't. As it stands most of the incumbents are going to win. Ted Cruz, for example, is 9 points ahead in polls. Pelosi won her primary challenge hands down and doesn't have a credible opponent. Folks vote their "gut", not issues.

Not inevitable

[rsilvergun]

we need to start voting for candidates that refuse corporate money. There's a wing of the Democratic party that does (called "Justice Democrats"). I don't know of a GOP equivalent, but if somebody does feel free to chime in.

We can stop this any time we want, and the answer is simple: If you take corporate money then you don't get elected. Period.

Re: Not inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Campaign contributions are just the tip of the iceberg. Those JDs are still free to enjoy wonderful board seats for them and their friends, trade stocks on inside information and enrich themselves through corporate sponsorship once out of office. I don't have the answer, but money in politics is deeper than campaign funding.

Re:Not inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Justicedemocrats.com
wolf-pac.com
tytnetwork.com/join

Moving is necessity if you want to retain freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

People fail to grasp that the vast majority of the world's population is either deluded in part out of ignorance or is in a cycle of abuse no different than a women whose in an abusive relationship that moves from one abuser to another constantly making excuses for why they can't leave there partner(s).

The first part of the problem has been slow in the making and why people don't recognize the abusive situation. At first the government only stole a small amount from them so nobody complained. As the years have progressed people have been deceived into paying more and more knowingly or otherwise. Hidden fees that have resulted in increased costs of goods rather than a direct tax for example. Half of the taxes if not more that you pay don't even show up on your pay stub. As an employer I know that my employees are deprived of half of there earned income despite only half of that being advertised on the pay stub as a tax.

If people were free to spend the money they earn without the deception everybody would be better off. But as things stand people perceive the situation as though there employer doesn't pay them enough and so they demand socialism. Unfortunately socialism largely redirects money from your pocket into the pocket of another entity but unlike in a free market you have no choice in the matter. I'm blown away by the fact people in some socialists countries demand the government take care of there kids because they can't afford to do so themselves. This wouldn't be so shocking if not for the fact we're talking about people in the middle class.

Copyrights and patents undermine the free market and are part of the problem. It's basically socialism for the wealthy. The only solution to the problem that has any hope of succeeding is one where like-minded people migrate to a single area for the purpose of developing a free society and solutions to there being a lack of big/strong government.

The Doobie Brothers were there?

[No Longer an AC]

Those guys really take copyrights seriously.

Anyone remember when the Doobies were on What's Happening and Rerun was caught taping their concert?

Patrick Simmons: I thought you guys were our friends

Michael McDonald: How could you guys do this to us?
.... ... ...
Dwayne: Are we gonna go to jail?

John Hartman: Man, how do I know? What would you do if you were in our shoes?

Rerun: Well, I'd just send us home and laugh it off.

Bobby La Kind: It's not funny!

Yeah, it's serious business.

---

And since I've already wandered a bit off topic, this is my favorite concert-taping story:

back in 81, robert fripp was doing his first frippertronic
tour and was playing at the u. of pennsylvania in philly...we knew we had to
tape it, but knowing how quirky fripp is on this issue and the small size of
the venue, we had to resort to unconventional means...so we went to a medical
supply house, rented a wheelchair, taped the mics to the arm rests, and had my
buddy sitting in the thing with a blanket covering the deck...fripp, who was
tuning up and checking his decks, graciously requested that our suddenly
wheelchair bound buddy be placed right in front of him...at the end of a nice
60 minute set, and after fripp takes his bows, my buddy, who was being fed
margaritas via a straw the whole time, starts screaming: "fripp healed me...i
feel my legs...hallelujah...fripp is god", jumps outta the chair and runs
outta the place...pandemonium ensues of course, and fripp is flabergasted...the
story does not end though...next day, fripp is doing promo signing at a record
store, and i walk in with a j-card and ask him to sign it for the guy he had
healed yesterday, becuz the tape of the gig would be incomplete without it...
needless to say, fripp went ballistic, spewing obscenities left and right...
i had a good laugh...

https://groups.google.com/foru...

You know it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is evil. Just plain evil. Principles no longer exist when it comes to the US congress or president. It doesn't matter which party they are from. Both are evil and actively working against the people's interests.

Never Giving Them A Dime

[Anonymous Coward]

#PIRATE4LIFE

Whores STEALING from our Public Domain you say? Making America Guilded Again!!

money forever

[bigtreeman]

When a worker does some work, they get paid once.
When a record company does some work they get paid forever.

While we're at it...

[Pezbian]

It sure would be nice if licensing were more streamlined.

Music licensing today is what game engine licensing was 20 years ago where the barrier to entry was ridiculous and you were stuck forking over thousands of dollars, minimum, just to open a dialog. Don't even get me started on console development.

Now AAA game engines are available for a song and dance. UE4 is pretty much everywhere.
I was able to become an XNA developer on Xbox 360 in 2007. I had a lot of fun with that.
And, on top of that, Nintendo allowed me to become a third-party Wii U developer a few years ago instead of just sending me a head-patting form-letter.
Granted, I didn't go anywhere with the Wii U thing because nobody bought one, but Nintendo opening up like that was jarring.

Pre 1972 recordings

[McFortner]

A quick note, just to get this out of the way at the start. I am a Conservative, deal with it. It however doesn't mean I agree or even like all the things they do. Just sayin'. So let's not go political on this, please. There's enough blame to go around. Now on to my comments.

So, the politicians caved into the pressure from the music industry and now pre 1972 recordings have been retroactively given Federal copyright status, taking away a lot of public domain songs. Great, just f***ing great. From the EFF's page on this:

The new bill also brings older recordings into the public domain sooner. Recordings made before 1923 will exit from all copyright protection after a 3-year grace period. Recordings made from 1923 to 1956 will enter the public domain over the next several decades. And recordings from 1957 onward will continue under copyright until 2067, as before. These terms are still ridiculously long—up to 110 years from first publication, which is longer than any other U.S. copyright..

EFF on Music Modernization Act

Public Domain is becoming a joke worldwide. Why do they need copyright life +90 years? Especially with a lot of the rights are owned by mega-corporations (Looking at you, UMG ) who keep fighting to get copyright extended and NEVER DIE like people. Corporation goes under, the assets, especially IP, get sold off to somebody else. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Also from that EFF page I quoted:

But our musical heritage will leave the exclusive control of the major record labels sooner than it would have otherwise.

Yeah, not much consolation there. They just keep on getting away with pushing the dates further and further back since they keep getting away with it. It is just how most, if not all politicians work. Money walks, bulls(*t walks.

Now I can't wait to see what they ram through Congress before the end of the year to keep Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse out of the Public Domain. (p.s.: sarcasm there) That one is gonna make the Sony Bono Act jealous.

And don't blame the just the President. BOTH Parties have their pockets lined by the music mega-corporations (still looking at you, UMG ). It would have happened no matter WHO won the election (please, no party faction followups on this), because Congress would have overridden any theoretical and practically impossible chance of a veto ANY President would have put up. So I'm blaming all sides of the political spectrum on this one, even those few politicians I like.

Guess I'm gonna have to delete my music videos of 40s to 60s music on YouTube soon since they are gonna fold even more to the "rights holders". Damn shame too, because I did all the work copying them from the original LPs and cleaning up the audio since nobody is printing CDs of them. But, hey, it will make UMG(told you I was still looking at you, UMG a crap-ton more money!

Thanks, Congress, for selling us all out yet again. So much for all of them serving the public trust.

Re:Pre 1972 recordings

[McFortner]

Now I can't wait to see what they ram through Congress before the end of the year to keep Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse out of the Public Domain. (p.s.: sarcasm there) That one is gonna make the Sony Bono Act jealous.

Oops, my mistake! Steamboat Willie won't hit Public Domain until January 1st, 2024. Plenty of time for Di$ney to fix that.

Mea culpa.

True, Support Liz Warren's bill

[rsilvergun]

She's got a bill currently languishing in committee that would be a big hit to the revolving door of "become senator/become lobbyist".

Again though, you have to put the kinds of folks in power who will support it. Right now that appears to be the Justice Democrats. If it's not, we need to vote them out. But they at least a) refuse corporate PAC money, b) support laws like Liz Warren's that make it illegal to lobby after serving in Congress and c) have a populist, pro-consumer, pro-worker platform.

One thing you will never do is get rid of big government. The rich and powerful like it that way, and if you try to solve the problem by eliminating the strong central government the wealthy will just build those power structures on their own and without your input. The only solution is to take part in the system and make it what you want it to be.

Million is more than hundred

[raymorris]

About 1,500 artists currently have active contracts with record labels in the US.

About 15 million artists are listed on Myspace.

You seem to be thinking that only artists advertised by a major label are worth listening too. Most artists featured in marketing campaigns by major labels are signed to the labels that market them, yes. The question is, are you looking for marketing, or for music? The labels provide most of the marketing, and 0.0001% of the music.

Nowhere is safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an aggressive progressive and guess where I just moved?? See you at the ballot box in November :D :D :D :D

this is what you voted for

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you keep repeatedly imploring the readers to ignore and otherwise not respond to your post with politics is a clear indicator that you, yourself, know that your party did this, it is wrong, and you should be ashamed but you aren't. Furthermore, in typical conservative fashion, you've shown your hypocrisy multiple times. The worst being how you don't like a law so it's ok to break it (your youtube videos you're whining about) but your party is always screaming "RULE OF LAW" and I'd wager you usually do too.

What your long post is REALLY bitching about is that you're pissed you have to lay in the bed you demanded we buy. You voted for the fucker. We, the unashamed liberals (so get over it), told you what you'd get. You decided spite was the better choice. You can fuck right off. "Suck it up buttercup" I think is what you guys tell us.

Copyright encouraging art from the dead?

[jmhysong]

If copyright was designed to encourage artists to produce more art for the enrichment of the people, how did it ever start being applied after an artist's death. You can't get more art from the dead. I mean, I know greed explains it, but what's the justification?

You seem to confuse the music industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

... with the musician industry.

They are direct enemies.
More precisely, the former tries to leech on the latter for cocaine money too. But any part of the latter, used this way, by definition dies and becomes part of the former.

What you describe, is part of the former.

Hint: There are usually no artists in the mass-media, nor are they hyped.
You need to look for music in better places. Not the radio, for starters.
Try those who play the bars and clubs and streets every day, and dont care about copying, since tickets and merchandising are their only incomes. Or look on YouTube if you know how to find those who do it privately and for the love of it.

Just be wary of and avoid the risk of becoming a hipster. ;)

Re:You seem to confuse the music industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I'll just continue listening to my Classical music collection.

Just how willing are you?

[Solandri]

If you want to erect an ironclad separation between corporations and politics, then there's one further step you need to take. Do you believe in "no taxation without representation?" Most Americans do. If you do, and you also believe in taxing corporations, then you also believe corporations are entitled to representation in government. Since corporations can't vote, the only form of representation they have is (drumroll)... campaign contributions.

So to completely separate corporations and politics requires (1) not voting for anyone who accepts campaign contributions from a corporation, and (2) eliminating corporate taxes.

If you're gonna argue that corporations are made up of people, who can vote, then congratulations - you've half figured it out. Yes corporations are made up of people. And corporate taxes are paid for by those same people - via higher prices, lower wages, and lower dividends. So it doesn't really matter whether you tax corporations, or instead tax the people buying corporate products, working at corporations, and receiving dividends from corporate stock. The same people end up paying the taxes either way. Corporations are just pass-through paper entities, a facade for the people behind them - both in terms of representation and for taxation. The cleanest way to accomplish what you want still remains eliminating corporate taxes and removing the ability of corporations to donate to campaigns.

Music and Movie induststries are out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

Music and movie industries are out of control. I think it's time everybody stopped paying for any music or movies. Everybody needs to either boycott both, or pirate everything until they get a clue and come back to reality. All these big corporations, not just music and movie, are making tons of money, and yet they still keep tightening their grip on everything. I have no problem with companies making money, but I hate the attitude that many of these companies are exhibiting. It's only going to get worse of we don't hit them where it hurts.

Feel free to add to the list of corporations that need to come back to reality. I'll add some now.
Comcast
AT&T
Verizon
Microsoft

Then there is the government that needs fixing.

Captcha = struggle

What about the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this affect the RIAA's soundexchange scam?