Senate passes copyright bill to end 140-year protection for old songs(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Senate passes copyright bill to end 140-year protection for old songs
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/senate-passes-copyright-bill-to-end-140-year-protection-for-old-songs/
142 comments
As bad as it is, I'd consider it something of a victory considering the only reason I clicked the HN link to this discussion was my cognitive expectation in yet another defeat for copyright law pessimistically substituted "end" with "extend," and evoked a defeatist reaction that I might come here to bathe in sorrow.
Once I started reading the article and comments I was really confused until I reread the title very slowly to catch my mistake in perception. I guess we really do see the world through our own predecided lenses of reality and choose how an internal narrative will match any evidence in support or censor in defense.
Or rather, that's only me. And I hope to overcome that with (un)learning. :D
Once I started reading the article and comments I was really confused until I reread the title very slowly to catch my mistake in perception. I guess we really do see the world through our own predecided lenses of reality and choose how an internal narrative will match any evidence in support or censor in defense.
Or rather, that's only me. And I hope to overcome that with (un)learning. :D
Had the same reaction :)
All things considered, a drop from 140 years to 100 is a good outcome.
Then we discuss details like the right to profit from mother's /father's music and for how long....
Then we discuss details like the right to profit from mother's /father's music and for how long....
I can only imagine the kids asking, "why don't old TV shows have the happy birthday song in there?" I'm wondering what other songs might come into TV and other popular media now that they are public domain.
Note: Both the music and lyrics are in public domain in both the European Union and United States. The copyright expired in the European Union on January 1, 2017. In the United States, a federal court ruled in 2016 that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim was invalid and there was no other claim to copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Note: Both the music and lyrics are in public domain in both the European Union and United States. The copyright expired in the European Union on January 1, 2017. In the United States, a federal court ruled in 2016 that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim was invalid and there was no other claim to copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Well the issue is more that it's been such a asterisk on a song it'd be more kids never hearing 'Happy Birthday to You' in the first place. 'Happy Birthday' and sharing blowing out the candles may be the most common non-direct experience provided by media for a group of people who wouldn't pass on the song as tradition, and so on and so on.
> I can only imagine the kids asking, "why don't old TV shows have the happy birthday song in there?"
There must be some response here about the likelihood of kids getting the chance to watch old TV shows, given the current state of copyright law....
There must be some response here about the likelihood of kids getting the chance to watch old TV shows, given the current state of copyright law....
> There must be some response here about the likelihood of kids getting the chance to watch old TV shows, given the current state of copyright law
I'm starting to think this might be one of the drivers of current copyright laws, the biggest competitor for media companies is gradually becoming there own back catalogs. When you've got 50 years of classics to watch or rewatch you're less willing to spend money on new content.
I'm starting to think this might be one of the drivers of current copyright laws, the biggest competitor for media companies is gradually becoming there own back catalogs. When you've got 50 years of classics to watch or rewatch you're less willing to spend money on new content.
Sadly, that may be a valid use case for piracy.
Then again, Dinosaur Media Limited probably will be streaming...
Then again, Dinosaur Media Limited probably will be streaming...
Wow, from 140 years to 110 years.
For comparison, patents only last 20 years.
For comparison, patents only last 20 years.
Patents last 20 years only if you keep paying the maintenance fees.
Edit: Here's and idea: The yearly fees for copyrights ought to be something like X = years from publication, fee is X^X. So the first year would cost a dollar and the 10th year would cost 10 billion dollars. You can keep your copyright as long as you want!
Edit: Here's and idea: The yearly fees for copyrights ought to be something like X = years from publication, fee is X^X. So the first year would cost a dollar and the 10th year would cost 10 billion dollars. You can keep your copyright as long as you want!
The goal of copyright is not to put works into the public domain, it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work. This has been the basis for every copyright extension and the courts have agreed seeing little value in letting works go public domain.
Presumably you're speaking cynically about how copyright is treated. For the official, stated reason:
Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”[0]
[0] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/
Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”[0]
[0] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/
I think the key word there is "limited times", which someone could argue that 140 years (even 110) is no longer limited, but "unlimited" for the authors/inventors lifetime.
I do agree that copyright could last longer than patents, although the current laws are made to grant copyright for many (~6) generations, while patents are for only ~1 (all depends what you call a generation, I estimated at 20-25 years).
I do agree that copyright could last longer than patents, although the current laws are made to grant copyright for many (~6) generations, while patents are for only ~1 (all depends what you call a generation, I estimated at 20-25 years).
So the goal is to enable authors and inventors to have exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries? Out of curiosity, how many authors and inventors do you think live 110 years after their writing or discovery?
And of course this is securing for a limited time to authors and inventors. In other words, it should be limited relative to the life of these authors -- not even life long, let alone long after they're deceased.
And of course this is securing for a limited time to authors and inventors. In other words, it should be limited relative to the life of these authors -- not even life long, let alone long after they're deceased.
> Out of curiosity, how many authors and inventors do you think live 110 years after their writing or discovery?
Well now that we've all agreed(lol) that corporations are now citizens, I'd argue that some do indeed 'live' long after the normal squishy citizen(s) that originally invented/created the thing have died (e.g. IBM).
(Note: I agree with your point, just playing devil's advocate)
Well now that we've all agreed(lol) that corporations are now citizens, I'd argue that some do indeed 'live' long after the normal squishy citizen(s) that originally invented/created the thing have died (e.g. IBM).
(Note: I agree with your point, just playing devil's advocate)
> So the goal is to enable authors and inventors to have exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries
No, that is the means of accomplishing the goal. The goal is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
No, that is the means of accomplishing the goal. The goal is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
As the constitution clause states, it's not the goal to have these exclusive rights; these exclusive rights are the means(motivation) by which to facilitate the creation and publication of such works.
You're absolutely right, but what you're saying suggests an even more limited ability of congress. The whole point of the United State's political design was to strictly limit the ability of congress except to what was allowed. For instance the right to free speech does not grant citizens the right to free speech -- that is already inherent. It prohibits the government from being able to take that inherent right away.
The constitution is not a guideline to unlimited powers, but constraints to limited powers. If congress is passing various copyright laws for reasons other than to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" then it would be unconstitutional. In other words passing laws to enhance profits rather than to ensure creator motivation would be unconstitutional, yet that's unambiguously the motivation for nearly all modern copyright law. Nobody is deterred from creating a work because they would only own the rights to it for e.g. 30 years, let alone 110 years.
The constitution is not a guideline to unlimited powers, but constraints to limited powers. If congress is passing various copyright laws for reasons other than to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" then it would be unconstitutional. In other words passing laws to enhance profits rather than to ensure creator motivation would be unconstitutional, yet that's unambiguously the motivation for nearly all modern copyright law. Nobody is deterred from creating a work because they would only own the rights to it for e.g. 30 years, let alone 110 years.
That's a good point, although unfortunately I could see them getting away with extra power due to the interstate commerce clause that they use to justify so much else.
> it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work
That may be why governments of the world keep passing copyright laws now and how they view copyright.
But copyright was established as a "balance" between making it profitable for the author to create the work (read: not to extract billions of dollars out of a work) in order to benefit the public. The primary goal has always been to benefit the public, not the author.
Also, one of the reasons why copyright should be finite and not have too long of a term is because no author has ever created anything - anything at all - from scratch. They themselves have built upon the work of others. This is why copyright is meant to be a system where one creates something upon something else, and then someone new can create something new upon that previous work, and so on.
Copyright was meant to be a kickstarting mechanism for authors, not a rent-seeking one, which is how it's used today.
If you still don't see this what I'm trying to say from my comment, I highly suggest you watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
That may be why governments of the world keep passing copyright laws now and how they view copyright.
But copyright was established as a "balance" between making it profitable for the author to create the work (read: not to extract billions of dollars out of a work) in order to benefit the public. The primary goal has always been to benefit the public, not the author.
Also, one of the reasons why copyright should be finite and not have too long of a term is because no author has ever created anything - anything at all - from scratch. They themselves have built upon the work of others. This is why copyright is meant to be a system where one creates something upon something else, and then someone new can create something new upon that previous work, and so on.
Copyright was meant to be a kickstarting mechanism for authors, not a rent-seeking one, which is how it's used today.
If you still don't see this what I'm trying to say from my comment, I highly suggest you watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
That's fine, but we should then tax it same as all other property that is a significant investment - have the tax assessor evaluate the market value, and tax based on that.
Then we'll see how much Mickey Mouse copyrights etc are really worth to Disney.
Oh, and capping it on the bottom end - even symbolically, to something like a dollar a year, just so that there's the hassle of having to pay it - would also solve the abandonware problem.
Then we'll see how much Mickey Mouse copyrights etc are really worth to Disney.
Oh, and capping it on the bottom end - even symbolically, to something like a dollar a year, just so that there's the hassle of having to pay it - would also solve the abandonware problem.
Don't know about Mickey or how corps are taxed on their assets but I assume they are taxed on what they gain from their assets. So if Disney makes $2 Billion a year from Mickey they are taxed on that.
Also, when Eminem dies, IRS will value his estate (mainly image rights, songs and copyrights) and send a bill for close to half of the value.
Also, when Eminem dies, IRS will value his estate (mainly image rights, songs and copyrights) and send a bill for close to half of the value.
A person who owns a house and rents it out is taxed both on rental income, and on the value of the house itself.
They say that copyrights are "intellectual property". Let's treat them as such in other respects, not just when it comes to protecting property rights.
They say that copyrights are "intellectual property". Let's treat them as such in other respects, not just when it comes to protecting property rights.
Current authors oulling the ladder up behind them.
The Brothers Grimm works helped Disney, who refuses to allow another Disney in like kind.
FREE THE MOUSE
I had that as a bumper sticker for over a decade. Lots of people asked! Was the best sticker ever. I told the Disney story many, many times.
Interestingly, most people were engaged, asked questions, mostly understood.
"So, that is why we get Terminator 2, 3, 4, 13...?"
What makes sense?
Balance of benefit of author and the public.
Authors need material to work from. Without that, everything will need a clearance of some sort. It is extremely difficult to make entirely new works and have them be compelling enough to reach greater relevance. No public works = tepid new works.
The public wants and benefits from a robust, rich culture. Everything owned = stale, managed culture formed in boardrooms.
Authors need to eat and benefit from their works. These benefits can and should be substantial, depending. No copyright term = dubious value in creative works = starving authors.
0 years breaks creation. Infinity years breaks culture, dilutes overall value to everyone.
100?
It is better than infinity, but where is the sweet spot?
The Brothers Grimm worked under 24 year terms. Disney used those works, once public, only to object and deny others what they got to build from.
And here we are today.
I personally think 40 is pretty great. Others want 0, others want hundreds of years.
I also believe overly long terms will result in counter, protest culture. Won't be easy to monetize, will ignore DRM, law, and will exist to deny the established scheme, because fuck them and their greed. Or something along those lines.
The Brothers Grimm works helped Disney, who refuses to allow another Disney in like kind.
FREE THE MOUSE
I had that as a bumper sticker for over a decade. Lots of people asked! Was the best sticker ever. I told the Disney story many, many times.
Interestingly, most people were engaged, asked questions, mostly understood.
"So, that is why we get Terminator 2, 3, 4, 13...?"
What makes sense?
Balance of benefit of author and the public.
Authors need material to work from. Without that, everything will need a clearance of some sort. It is extremely difficult to make entirely new works and have them be compelling enough to reach greater relevance. No public works = tepid new works.
The public wants and benefits from a robust, rich culture. Everything owned = stale, managed culture formed in boardrooms.
Authors need to eat and benefit from their works. These benefits can and should be substantial, depending. No copyright term = dubious value in creative works = starving authors.
0 years breaks creation. Infinity years breaks culture, dilutes overall value to everyone.
100?
It is better than infinity, but where is the sweet spot?
The Brothers Grimm worked under 24 year terms. Disney used those works, once public, only to object and deny others what they got to build from.
And here we are today.
I personally think 40 is pretty great. Others want 0, others want hundreds of years.
I also believe overly long terms will result in counter, protest culture. Won't be easy to monetize, will ignore DRM, law, and will exist to deny the established scheme, because fuck them and their greed. Or something along those lines.
Regarding "FREE THE MOUSE", Disney wouldn't even actually lose the rights to Mickey Mouse at all, right? I'm under the impression that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, and that the copyrighted work in question is the actual Steamboat Willie cartoon. So even if copyright was abolished entirely, Mickey would be just as safe as the Disney trademark itself. Am I wrong?
I do not think you are wrong.
But, some one could do a Felix the Cat, Betty Boop, Steamboat Willie mashup.
But, some one could do a Felix the Cat, Betty Boop, Steamboat Willie mashup.
If I have got the facts correct, most authors derive any income from their works in the first 3.5 years. Organisations like Disney et al are not authors but are gatekeepers and hence any benefit that they derive from copyright should be eliminated.
Hence, copyright should be a maximum of 7 years, consisting of 3.5 years initial and a explicitly asked for 3.5 years extension. Go back to the officially request copyright and if not done it is automatically public domain.
This would be the most beneficial to authors and the public as we really need to discount any benefit to the gatekeepers.
There are jurisdictions where an author cannot legally commit his/her work into the public domain as the law forces protections they do not want on to them.
Hence, copyright should be a maximum of 7 years, consisting of 3.5 years initial and a explicitly asked for 3.5 years extension. Go back to the officially request copyright and if not done it is automatically public domain.
This would be the most beneficial to authors and the public as we really need to discount any benefit to the gatekeepers.
There are jurisdictions where an author cannot legally commit his/her work into the public domain as the law forces protections they do not want on to them.
I am wide open on a reasonable term debate.
It is way too much now. Culture suffers today, and the older I get the more I can see it.
It is way too much now. Culture suffers today, and the older I get the more I can see it.
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Promoting the arts definitely sounds like extracting maximum value.
Promoting the arts definitely sounds like extracting maximum value.
progress is promoted when people can use existing stuff. Just look at Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and other things remixing existing public domain stuff.
Sorry, I forgot how poorly sarcasm translates over text. I completely agree, and think that the current copyright period is far too long, preventing expansion on existing works.
I think Spivak's comment was talking about the "de facto" purpose as born out by experience. I usually don't like being cynical, but it seems copyright legislation is one of those areas where it's hard to be overly pessimistic
What is the argument then for setting any number other than 0 or infinity? What are 100, 110, or 140 supposed to represent?
> What are 100, 110, or 140 supposed to represent?
A compromise between two or more people with the power to influence such things.
A compromise between two or more people with the power to influence such things.
Wrong. Nobody who wants to influence the number down will have any political power in a society with private property rights. It will grow toward infinity on that ground alone.
14 years of copyright + another 14 years if the author was alive and renewed was already a solid amount to begin with. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Article gets it backwards. There is currently no copyright on sound recordings made before 1972. Under the new legislation, such sound recordings would disappear from the public domain and retroactively get a 95-year copyright term.
100 years that's insane. The world needs to catch up with the times. copyright needs to be down to a few (<10) years Max. The main reason being that you can monetize it more efficiently and much faster today.
Under 10 sounds just as insane as a century.
There are countless artists and authors who go undiscovered for years before having a breakthrough and becoming popular. There's a lot of non-fiction books that are slow but steady sellers for years. Some of that non-fiction needed years of research.
Drop copyright to say 5 years and you hurt all of those creators, potentially quite badly. The Disney's, George Martin's and JK Rowling's of the world would be hurt vastly less as so many of their sales are right around release.
If I had to throw a number out I'd go with something like 20 years, and upto 5 or 10 years beyond death - to cover those writing an autobiography or creating something in their final years.
There are countless artists and authors who go undiscovered for years before having a breakthrough and becoming popular. There's a lot of non-fiction books that are slow but steady sellers for years. Some of that non-fiction needed years of research.
Drop copyright to say 5 years and you hurt all of those creators, potentially quite badly. The Disney's, George Martin's and JK Rowling's of the world would be hurt vastly less as so many of their sales are right around release.
If I had to throw a number out I'd go with something like 20 years, and upto 5 or 10 years beyond death - to cover those writing an autobiography or creating something in their final years.
Agree with these ideas of limits, but I'd also add limits to transfer. It seems where we get into trouble is artists transferring the rights to corporations--which seems okay--but then the corporation can use substantial political power to fight for them forever, long after the artist has expired. You might want something like "until artist dies, or if sold to another party, 10 years for that party."
We see the same sort of thing with patent trolls - if all you do is buy up IP and then sue someone, that's not a model that furthers humanity or IP creators.
We see the same sort of thing with patent trolls - if all you do is buy up IP and then sue someone, that's not a model that furthers humanity or IP creators.
> You might want something like "until artist dies, or if sold to another party, 10 years for that party."
Any law like like that would be circumvented through creative “leasing” of royalties.
Any law like like that would be circumvented through creative “leasing” of royalties.
Only the person who created a work should get copyright. It shouldn't be transferable at all. Something like:
Individual copyright: 25 years or date of death + 10 years.
Corporate copyright: 25 years.
Individual copyright: 25 years or date of death + 10 years.
Corporate copyright: 25 years.
If it's non-transferrable...
a) That +10 years after holder death no longer makes sense
b) Corporations would be unable to posses copyright.
a) That +10 years after holder death no longer makes sense
b) Corporations would be unable to posses copyright.
I think intent is pretty clear and legal types could fairly easily turn it into precise enough legislation and find ways to prevent creative evasion.
a) Is a clear and simple exception, that permits inheritors to receive proceeds of a work for a limited time. It would prevent the abusive control some estates have over copyright decades after the creator's death.
b) Intent seems rather like the clauses for code copyright many of us have had in contracts of employment. IANAL but I'm sure something could be drafted that limits transfers but still allows design companies assigning copyright of the customer's new logo. Perhaps the only transfer can be limited to the first three months after creation or something.
a) Is a clear and simple exception, that permits inheritors to receive proceeds of a work for a limited time. It would prevent the abusive control some estates have over copyright decades after the creator's death.
b) Intent seems rather like the clauses for code copyright many of us have had in contracts of employment. IANAL but I'm sure something could be drafted that limits transfers but still allows design companies assigning copyright of the customer's new logo. Perhaps the only transfer can be limited to the first three months after creation or something.
[deleted]
I'd actually prefer a use-it-or-lose-it system for copyright. Like paying a yearly fee of maybe $100 to keep it copyrighted after a particular time has passed. Let Disney keep all the shit they want but other works that aren't being monetized are free for the taking (and other monetization).
Ironically this "use or lose it" system ends up creating a lot of crap just to keep a hold of the rights. For example, the movie rights to Fantastic Four.
Yeah, I think it should be more of a pay system than a use system. If after 10 years the work isn't worth a $100 or $1000 fee -- or there is no entity left to pay it -- then perhaps it should be public domain.
I’ve written a number of blog posts. Some are under CC-BYSA. Others GFDL. Others under all rights reserved.
Should I have to pay to avoid having those posts become public domain within my lifetime and I lose control of what I’ve written?
Should I have to pay to avoid having those posts become public domain within my lifetime and I lose control of what I’ve written?
There is an even greater cardinality of countless artists and authors who produce amazing content or research to spend their lives with at least a nagging background thought of regret in not pursuing something more profitable than holding on to a vapid dream of equivalent exchange between creative effort and financial or social success.
A reward system for content creation by definition has to be a pyramid scheme, due to the need for the general public to have examples of normalized contrasting quality in anchoring supposed worth as well as the need for the governance structures to have a well diversified orchard of luscious fruit ripe and especially bountiful enough to cherrypick which works are most applicable for promotion at any given time on the carousel wheel of policy.
A reward system for content creation by definition has to be a pyramid scheme, due to the need for the general public to have examples of normalized contrasting quality in anchoring supposed worth as well as the need for the governance structures to have a well diversified orchard of luscious fruit ripe and especially bountiful enough to cherrypick which works are most applicable for promotion at any given time on the carousel wheel of policy.
It isn't really. Copyright laws took into account the difficulty of creating & distributing copies. In the past 30 years that has been condensed, what, 1 million times? One can very well make the case that it's difficult nowadays to find copyrights that take more than 10 years to be monetized . Even the books that you mention took less than 10 years to reach a massive audience. And perhaps if the authors felt the pressure they 'd have produced even better works.
I have photographs that I took 10 years ago that I occasionally sell prints of. I don't try selling prints, but they're out there.
Removing copyright protections from them would be very disconcerting. I don't want to find my photographs as postcards sold somewhere without any licensing fees paid to me just because they're old.
Consider also that the GPL and all software licenses use the power of copyright protection as the legal force behind how they work. If copyright protection was 10 years, one would be able to take any 10 year old code and close source it (and sell it) with no legal repercussions.
Removing copyright protections from them would be very disconcerting. I don't want to find my photographs as postcards sold somewhere without any licensing fees paid to me just because they're old.
Consider also that the GPL and all software licenses use the power of copyright protection as the legal force behind how they work. If copyright protection was 10 years, one would be able to take any 10 year old code and close source it (and sell it) with no legal repercussions.
If copyright only lasted 10 years would you take those prints down before expiration? There wouldn't be sufficient value in building name recognition?
Note that if copyright only lasted 10 years you could take them down but somebody else could simply republish them. The real question is, with only a 10 year copyright would you take and publish fewer photographs overall?
Note that if copyright only lasted 10 years you could take them down but somebody else could simply republish them. The real question is, with only a 10 year copyright would you take and publish fewer photographs overall?
As a not professional photographer, I wouldn’t even put them up in the first place. I do photography for myself for my enjoyment.
If the copyright protection expired in 10 years, releasing them at all would be allowing someone else to monetize them in a few years.
If the copyright protection expired in 10 years, releasing them at all would be allowing someone else to monetize them in a few years.
[deleted]
> If copyright protection was 10 years, one would be able to take any 10 year old code and close source it (and sell it) with no legal repercussions.
So? 10 years is eternity in the world of software. If some company wants to fork, say, gcc as it was 10 years ago, and try making money selling that... well, people have the right to ruin their business.
So? 10 years is eternity in the world of software. If some company wants to fork, say, gcc as it was 10 years ago, and try making money selling that... well, people have the right to ruin their business.
gcc would be difficult to make into a commercial product.
How about 10 year old Linux and not having to jump through any hoops or legal problems of TiVoizing it?
Or 10 year old iText from when it switched to AGPL? Now you can completely ignore that.
I can point to people running even older iText- they would love to update it to something more recent with no copyright protection at all under a 10 year limit.
How about 10 year old Linux and not having to jump through any hoops or legal problems of TiVoizing it?
Or 10 year old iText from when it switched to AGPL? Now you can completely ignore that.
I can point to people running even older iText- they would love to update it to something more recent with no copyright protection at all under a 10 year limit.
Sure, why not? Keep in mind that all these would be competing against up-to-date versions of the same software.
I'll be long dead before any of these changes matter.
I know I should be happy for future generations, but for some reason I can actually feel why the big-name politicians don't care about this. Because it will never even remotely affect them.
I know I should be happy for future generations, but for some reason I can actually feel why the big-name politicians don't care about this. Because it will never even remotely affect them.
I wonder what questionable language got slipped into this bill by lobbyists.
>just read all 109 pages of legaleze!
Is there a list of the most popular music this will release?
This needs to pass the House and Trump too, no?
The House already did, so now its off to the Oval Office, but since it has overwhelming votes, a Presidential veto would be pointless, as The Congress has the votes to override.
> [...] but since it has overwhelming votes, a Presidential veto would be pointless, as The Congress has the votes to override.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think it is going out on a limb to predict that President Trump will not be happy about a veto of his being overridden, and will be very vocal about that.
Has President Trump actually said anything about this issue? If he said he's against it and Congress still overwhelmingly voted for it then you are probably right--they would also vote to override a veto.
But if he has been silent on this and he vetoes it I would be shocked if a lot of members of Congress do not decide that they only voted for it because they thought the President was at least neutral on it and will realign their positions to conform to his.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think it is going out on a limb to predict that President Trump will not be happy about a veto of his being overridden, and will be very vocal about that.
Has President Trump actually said anything about this issue? If he said he's against it and Congress still overwhelmingly voted for it then you are probably right--they would also vote to override a veto.
But if he has been silent on this and he vetoes it I would be shocked if a lot of members of Congress do not decide that they only voted for it because they thought the President was at least neutral on it and will realign their positions to conform to his.
Just a nit, but they have to reconcile the two versions first before it goes to the president's desk
In addition to a veto being pointless, I don't think Trump cares about this issue at all. By which I mean, he wouldn't have a motivation to veto it.
If he takes no action, it becomes law automatically, aside from some edge cases around the end of a Congressional session where the bill dies. He'll probably prefer to preen in front of the cameras with a signing ceremony, I imagine.
If he takes no action, it becomes law automatically, aside from some edge cases around the end of a Congressional session where the bill dies. He'll probably prefer to preen in front of the cameras with a signing ceremony, I imagine.
I can't think of any good reason why music should even be copyrightable.
I can't think of any reason why music copyright should ever expire. Music is (1) purely the product of creation (i.e. you're not just taking ownership of something like land that's naturally occurring); and (2) completely non-rival (there are an infinite number of original songs for people to create). I don't see why rights in something like that shouldn't be perpetual. Why should anyone else ever acquire rights to something that's purely the product of your mind?
That's an interesting perspective, maybe this response will help.
It's tempting to think of copyright in terms of ownership. I wrote the song, so I own it, and anyone else who uses it is violating my ownership in some way. But that's incorrect. Copyright is about control. The holder of copyright is granted a certain amount of legal control over everyone else's actions. I can prevent Jack from selling a copy of my song. I can prevent Jill from performing my song live. They no longer have rights they used to have.
Of course there is no "natural" basis for this concept, unlike ownership of physical goods. It was invented merely as an economic tool to incentivize production. Legally, it's purely a fiction of government. If Jill moved to another country and performed my song, I might have no way to stop her. I'd probably never even find out. So how could I have some fundamental right to stop her from singing what she wants to sing?
Ethically, I would turn your question around: Why do I get to control other people's actions that don't affect me? Why should I be able to sell that control or hand it down to my heirs? It's not clear what that argument could be.
It's tempting to think of copyright in terms of ownership. I wrote the song, so I own it, and anyone else who uses it is violating my ownership in some way. But that's incorrect. Copyright is about control. The holder of copyright is granted a certain amount of legal control over everyone else's actions. I can prevent Jack from selling a copy of my song. I can prevent Jill from performing my song live. They no longer have rights they used to have.
Of course there is no "natural" basis for this concept, unlike ownership of physical goods. It was invented merely as an economic tool to incentivize production. Legally, it's purely a fiction of government. If Jill moved to another country and performed my song, I might have no way to stop her. I'd probably never even find out. So how could I have some fundamental right to stop her from singing what she wants to sing?
Ethically, I would turn your question around: Why do I get to control other people's actions that don't affect me? Why should I be able to sell that control or hand it down to my heirs? It's not clear what that argument could be.
> Ethically, I would turn your question around: Why do I get to control other people's actions that don't affect me? Why should I be able to sell that control or hand it down to my heirs? It's not clear what that argument could be.
All ownership is a right to "control other peoples' actions." What "fundamental right" does a farmer have to keep people from picking ears of corn off his field? Surely the farmer can't stop someone from exercising their natural right to grab whatever is laying around in nature for their own sustenance?
And infringement does "affect" the copyright owner, just as much as taking an ear of corn from a farmer's field. It reduces the market value of an economically valuable resource that the person created through their own labor. The response of "taking the ear of corn from the farmer leaves him with one less ear of corn" while copying a song does not seems like an ethically irrelevant distinction to me. The farmer doesn't care about possessing the corn. The only thing he cares about is how much he can sell his corn crop for, and the fact that someone taking an ear of corn reduces his income. Likewise, infringement reduces the money a content creator can get for having created a song or movie or book.
In both cases, what's lost is opportunities to make a sale. In the case of the corn, it's one lost opportunity per ear of corn (the stolen ear is one you can't sell to anyone), while in the case of the song, it's a fractional lost opportunity per copy (some of the people who get a copy would have bought it). That a difference of degree, not one of fundamental morality.
All ownership is a right to "control other peoples' actions." What "fundamental right" does a farmer have to keep people from picking ears of corn off his field? Surely the farmer can't stop someone from exercising their natural right to grab whatever is laying around in nature for their own sustenance?
And infringement does "affect" the copyright owner, just as much as taking an ear of corn from a farmer's field. It reduces the market value of an economically valuable resource that the person created through their own labor. The response of "taking the ear of corn from the farmer leaves him with one less ear of corn" while copying a song does not seems like an ethically irrelevant distinction to me. The farmer doesn't care about possessing the corn. The only thing he cares about is how much he can sell his corn crop for, and the fact that someone taking an ear of corn reduces his income. Likewise, infringement reduces the money a content creator can get for having created a song or movie or book.
In both cases, what's lost is opportunities to make a sale. In the case of the corn, it's one lost opportunity per ear of corn (the stolen ear is one you can't sell to anyone), while in the case of the song, it's a fractional lost opportunity per copy (some of the people who get a copy would have bought it). That a difference of degree, not one of fundamental morality.
You make an interesting point and I want to acknowledge that, but I disagree and will try to explain why. If you take an ear of corn that belongs to me, I no longer have the corn. This is not true if you perform my song. On the other hand, I'm not sure I have some fundamental right to profit from the corn, just because I own the corn. That seems like a stretch. Similarly it seems to me very entitled to say I have some right to money because somebody else sang my song.
Your analogy gets to a distinction I've seen made between personal property -- something I own and use for myself -- and private property, something I (or a company) own and use in order to make money. As I understand it some on the socialism spectrum deny the fundamental right to own private property in this sense (though not the right to own personal property), so they would use your analogy against you.
You also get at what ownership of physical items means. Corn is easier to justify ownership over because of the effort that went into growing and tending it. A less clear case is picking fruit off a wild tree that happens to grow on someone else's property. Here again I think you would find people arguing the fruit tree belongs to some extent to everybody (e.g. some countries have laws protecting your right to hike through "my" land). So again your analogy can work against your argument, maybe ownership of this corn or fruit tree is not such a natural right either.
In summary, you say "what's lost is opportunities to make a sale" and I would not recognize that as a fundamental right. I would recognize a fundamental right to own a physical item for personal use and not have it taken from you, and I would recognize the right to say or sing whatever you want.
Your analogy gets to a distinction I've seen made between personal property -- something I own and use for myself -- and private property, something I (or a company) own and use in order to make money. As I understand it some on the socialism spectrum deny the fundamental right to own private property in this sense (though not the right to own personal property), so they would use your analogy against you.
You also get at what ownership of physical items means. Corn is easier to justify ownership over because of the effort that went into growing and tending it. A less clear case is picking fruit off a wild tree that happens to grow on someone else's property. Here again I think you would find people arguing the fruit tree belongs to some extent to everybody (e.g. some countries have laws protecting your right to hike through "my" land). So again your analogy can work against your argument, maybe ownership of this corn or fruit tree is not such a natural right either.
In summary, you say "what's lost is opportunities to make a sale" and I would not recognize that as a fundamental right. I would recognize a fundamental right to own a physical item for personal use and not have it taken from you, and I would recognize the right to say or sing whatever you want.
So you have decided what rights you believe as fundamental, but through no arguable basis. Unfortunately for you, the rest of society (as evinced by copyright laws) have decided that the of opportunities to make a sale are fundamental. There is no such thing as a fundamental right - they only exist because a certain group of people decides to abide by them and will fight to the death to mail Tain them
If you believe that, do you also believe I have a right to take any code you ever write, regardless of how you've (heh) "licensed" it, and bake it into any closed source product I happen to want to use it in? If not, why not?
I don't have a natural right to prevent you from doing so.
But there's social contracts on top of that. Copyright is one such. It's not a right at all - it's a privilege (specifically, monopoly grant on distribution of certain information), that we as a society have decided to grant some people, because it incentivizes them to do things that we as a society want them to do.
Coincidentally, this also applies to regular property in a broad sense. The shirt that you wear on your back is yours in a physical sense; but, say, an apartment that you own and rent out in New York while living in California is only yours because the society declares it to be, and enforces that on your behalf - you don't have a natural right to such property, it's a social contract.
And no, I'm not a communist. Not anymore so than this guy:
"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1813
But there's social contracts on top of that. Copyright is one such. It's not a right at all - it's a privilege (specifically, monopoly grant on distribution of certain information), that we as a society have decided to grant some people, because it incentivizes them to do things that we as a society want them to do.
Coincidentally, this also applies to regular property in a broad sense. The shirt that you wear on your back is yours in a physical sense; but, say, an apartment that you own and rent out in New York while living in California is only yours because the society declares it to be, and enforces that on your behalf - you don't have a natural right to such property, it's a social contract.
And no, I'm not a communist. Not anymore so than this guy:
"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1813
I have mixed feelings about this, not sure exactly where I stand.[1] I think I might be ethically okay with a world without copyright control on code, especially because you could sign contracts governing how people use your code in exchange for revealing it to them. But it would take a lot of getting used to.
[1] Personally, I've put a few small open-source projects online and do take the stance that people can use them however they want, I assert no control over their use (I request attribution). But I don't make money from writing code so I'm not saying I think everyone else should do this.
[1] Personally, I've put a few small open-source projects online and do take the stance that people can use them however they want, I assert no control over their use (I request attribution). But I don't make money from writing code so I'm not saying I think everyone else should do this.
No, you couldn't. A contract that binds on someone after they obtain your source code is a license. In the coherent version of your world, once you've revealed your source code to someone, you can't stop them from publishing it to everybody else for free.
I mean, the license could have a nondisclosure/confidentiality agreement, right?
That wouldn't be a full substitute for copyright though. For example, if they broke the contract and distributed the code I don't think you could prevent other people from distributing it further.
That wouldn't be a full substitute for copyright though. For example, if they broke the contract and distributed the code I don't think you could prevent other people from distributing it further.
If you believe in contracts that selectively release source code for a fee subject to nondisclosure and other limitations on redistribution, you effectively believe in copyright. At most, you're saying that the default should be an unlimited right to redistribution. But that's not especially meaningful, because opting away from that default would be trivial, and practically every professional musician would do so immediately.
So copyright is redundant with legal structures already in place...? (Meant to be tongue-in-cheek)
The problem is that music has no inherent scarcity or exclusivity. Because there's no natural limit to the supply of copies, the marginal cost goes to zero.
To create a viable market, the entire rest of the country/world has to agree to inconvenience itself, simulating a scarcity by saying 'you're the only one who can legally make copies.'
So it's more a matter of hassling everyone else for the benefit of a relatively small group of creators. This is something that can be seen as a value-maximization problem.
How much extra music do we, as a society, get to enjoy by adding another N years to copyright? And what does that cost us in enforcement, licensing, and reduced ability to respin old work?
To create a viable market, the entire rest of the country/world has to agree to inconvenience itself, simulating a scarcity by saying 'you're the only one who can legally make copies.'
So it's more a matter of hassling everyone else for the benefit of a relatively small group of creators. This is something that can be seen as a value-maximization problem.
How much extra music do we, as a society, get to enjoy by adding another N years to copyright? And what does that cost us in enforcement, licensing, and reduced ability to respin old work?
There are certainly not an infinite number of original songs. There have already been lawsuits where songs that might have legitimately been independent creations were litigated for being too similar.
[deleted]
If that were the case, every note of every instrument would already be under copyright.
Seems we have a copyright perpetualist here on HN.
Why do you reject the notion of the public domain?
Why do you reject the notion of the public domain?
So that musicians get fairly compensated when you use their song in a movie or ad?
To play devil's advocate, why should people continue to be compensated for work they did long ago? It's normal today, but it wasn't always that way, and it could be time to revisit that assumption. The amount and quality of works would change for sure, but there's nothing I know if that says there aren't other reasonable systems out there.
Especially in light of the fact that copyright is not fulfilling it's intended promise. Specifically that the government protects the work for a time, and in return the work goes into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time in order to enrich society as a whole.
Especially in light of the fact that copyright is not fulfilling it's intended promise. Specifically that the government protects the work for a time, and in return the work goes into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time in order to enrich society as a whole.
What about things they did 6 months ago? The argument is whether music should be copyrightable at all, not whether 100-year copyright terms are reasonable.
Yes, good question.
Why indeed? We don't pay for food each time we reap the benefits of the nutrition it provided down the line. Weightlifters don't pay royalties to protein powder companies. It could be argued that artists could also be expected to not be paid beyond the initial creation of a work. It would be a very different world to be sure, but it's not a given that it would be a worse world.
Why indeed? We don't pay for food each time we reap the benefits of the nutrition it provided down the line. Weightlifters don't pay royalties to protein powder companies. It could be argued that artists could also be expected to not be paid beyond the initial creation of a work. It would be a very different world to be sure, but it's not a given that it would be a worse world.
No. There are two arguments. Whether music should be copyrightable at all is settled (though a fringe continues to argue it). That means that the second argument, whether 100-year copyright terms are reasonable, is in fact the main argument at this time.
Top of this thread:
"I can't think of any good reason why music should even be copyrightable."
This particular argument is about whether music should be copyrightable.
"I can't think of any good reason why music should even be copyrightable."
This particular argument is about whether music should be copyrightable.
> To play devil's advocate, why should people continue to be compensated for work they did long ago?
We often don't know which songs are worth millions and which are worth tens until years later.
If we believe that people who write songs should be compensated roughly proportionally to how valuable their songs are, it is hard to think of a way to actually do that which does not involve compensation long after the song is written.
We often don't know which songs are worth millions and which are worth tens until years later.
If we believe that people who write songs should be compensated roughly proportionally to how valuable their songs are, it is hard to think of a way to actually do that which does not involve compensation long after the song is written.
Fair enough perhaps, but then the copyright should die with the author.
Well that’s just the thing. “Fair” in this context is heavily biased by the how the world is currently organized.
I’m pretty sure the notion would sound ridiculous in a world without copyright. Such a world would look very different from ours.
But even if “fair compensation” was the goal. Why then not stipulate that in the law? Whay grant exclusive control of copying to anyone.
I’m pretty sure the notion would sound ridiculous in a world without copyright. Such a world would look very different from ours.
But even if “fair compensation” was the goal. Why then not stipulate that in the law? Whay grant exclusive control of copying to anyone.
Because "fair compensation" is a reeeeally hard term to define legally, while giving someone a monopoly on a particular song and letting the market determine how to price that song's usage is a more workable mechanism.
But it’s really not. Workable that is. The exclusive control of copies throws a huuuge wrench in the machinery.
Just in the copy providing department I still consistently run in to the situation where there is no legal means for me to enjoy certain albums, tv-series, movies, games or software.
But that’s just the problem with the actually legal copies. I find it even more distressing that some of the best works I want to enjoy are illigal to begin with due to the authors infringig of the exclusive right of some longe abandoned work.
And that’s just my experience. Considering the resources and suffering that goes into maintaining this state of affairs just boggles the mind.
Just in the copy providing department I still consistently run in to the situation where there is no legal means for me to enjoy certain albums, tv-series, movies, games or software.
But that’s just the problem with the actually legal copies. I find it even more distressing that some of the best works I want to enjoy are illigal to begin with due to the authors infringig of the exclusive right of some longe abandoned work.
And that’s just my experience. Considering the resources and suffering that goes into maintaining this state of affairs just boggles the mind.
> But it’s really not. Workable that is. The exclusive control of copies throws a huuuge wrench in the machinery.
Not really (at least, not in addressing lucasmullens' point). I'm making a movie or an ad. I think your song would be just perfect for it. You won't let me use it on terms that I consider reasonable. Well, there's more than one song that would be (approximately) perfect there. I'll see if their copyright holders are more reasonable.
If you absolutely have to have Song X in your movie, then your point is correct. But I assert that, most of the time, that isn't the case. And behold, now there's a market.
Not really (at least, not in addressing lucasmullens' point). I'm making a movie or an ad. I think your song would be just perfect for it. You won't let me use it on terms that I consider reasonable. Well, there's more than one song that would be (approximately) perfect there. I'll see if their copyright holders are more reasonable.
If you absolutely have to have Song X in your movie, then your point is correct. But I assert that, most of the time, that isn't the case. And behold, now there's a market.
If I make an emulator. Perhaps it would be nice to provide a few classic games with upgraded graphics and audio. Even finding the rights holders could be a challenge.
Perhaps I found the new Star Wars movie crap, a few cuts and edits. And it’s much better. Only can only dream of getting the rights of releasing it.
Perhaps the mastering of a Metallica album was just bad. With a little skills applied to the problem and there you go, a much nicer edition of the album. Cant really add it to Spotify though.
Perhaps I found the new Star Wars movie crap, a few cuts and edits. And it’s much better. Only can only dream of getting the rights of releasing it.
Perhaps the mastering of a Metallica album was just bad. With a little skills applied to the problem and there you go, a much nicer edition of the album. Cant really add it to Spotify though.
This can't actually be the reason -- music in particular is subject to a variety of compulsory license schemes for which "fair compensation" is legally defined, and the copyright holder does not have the ability to prevent someone from covering / broadcasting / etc. their song.
Interestingly enough we have a great example of limited copyright protections for musicians in China that are still fabulously wealthy and successful. Their wealth is generated through performing/concerts, advertising, etc while their music is freely available for streaming/download.
I think he was asking from a more philosophical stance, rather than practical.
Ignoring that most goes to the label, and the artists get a ridiculously small share of the pie?
It's not just the labels.
Most of the value in the music industry has gone to Apple and Spotify shareholders the last 20 years, not labels. There is at least $100-$150 billion in cumulative shareholder value sitting there from just that. Spotify is worth more than all the major labels combined.
The iPod doesn't exist without the music from the artists. Apple didn't share their hardware profits with artists, and they're not sharing any follow on value from the iPhone either (which was entirely made possible by the iPod).
People hate labels, they mostly love Apple and Spotify, so they largely get a pass on this. The real money in the music industry during the iPod era, was in the hardware.
Most of the value in the music industry has gone to Apple and Spotify shareholders the last 20 years, not labels. There is at least $100-$150 billion in cumulative shareholder value sitting there from just that. Spotify is worth more than all the major labels combined.
The iPod doesn't exist without the music from the artists. Apple didn't share their hardware profits with artists, and they're not sharing any follow on value from the iPhone either (which was entirely made possible by the iPod).
People hate labels, they mostly love Apple and Spotify, so they largely get a pass on this. The real money in the music industry during the iPod era, was in the hardware.
Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career? And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
Somewhere out there, there exists an alternate universe where musicians ponder nonchalantly whether people should be compensated for software. "Can't they just sell software logo t-shirts?"
In countries like China musicians make their money through performances, not through recordings. The two aren't comparable.
Music is art, to a significant extent. Rarely is software art.
But "art" isn't special.
As much as people may speak of art reflecting its creator, once it gets into the outside world, it becomes an interaction with everyone it contacts. There are a million new perspectives formed, and plenty that could be done to extend the work.
I could imagine taking software principles and applying them to art in many ways:
* Bugfixes-- from simple grammar flaws, to finishing dangled story threads, why aren't we patching and re-releasing novels?
* Technical improvements-- I could imagine, for example, a speaker manufacturer remixing songs so they sounded better on their hardware.
* Customization -- if you've made an attractive image or song, and it hasn't been repurposed to sell Diet Pepsi, you haven't really arrived.
The limit to these visions is that they run headlong both into the literal principles of copyright law, and the philosophy that art is somehow sacred as-is, rather than being a baseline for better and better things. Shorter copyrights and mandatory licensing can make it happen.
As much as people may speak of art reflecting its creator, once it gets into the outside world, it becomes an interaction with everyone it contacts. There are a million new perspectives formed, and plenty that could be done to extend the work.
I could imagine taking software principles and applying them to art in many ways:
* Bugfixes-- from simple grammar flaws, to finishing dangled story threads, why aren't we patching and re-releasing novels?
* Technical improvements-- I could imagine, for example, a speaker manufacturer remixing songs so they sounded better on their hardware.
* Customization -- if you've made an attractive image or song, and it hasn't been repurposed to sell Diet Pepsi, you haven't really arrived.
The limit to these visions is that they run headlong both into the literal principles of copyright law, and the philosophy that art is somehow sacred as-is, rather than being a baseline for better and better things. Shorter copyrights and mandatory licensing can make it happen.
> Bugfixes-- from simple grammar flaws, to finishing dangled story threads, why aren't we patching and re-releasing novels?
This is pretty similar to what’s happened with Kanye West’s The Life of Pablo. He’s repeatedly reworked it, tweaking the production and verses and in one case adding a whole new song.
> Customization -- if you've made an attractive image or song, and it hasn't been repurposed to sell Diet Pepsi, you haven't really arrived.
https://youtu.be/zxyTk3ligAc – a band playing a very close copy of their hit song Winchester Cathedral as a coke ad.
This is pretty similar to what’s happened with Kanye West’s The Life of Pablo. He’s repeatedly reworked it, tweaking the production and verses and in one case adding a whole new song.
> Customization -- if you've made an attractive image or song, and it hasn't been repurposed to sell Diet Pepsi, you haven't really arrived.
https://youtu.be/zxyTk3ligAc – a band playing a very close copy of their hit song Winchester Cathedral as a coke ad.
>He’s repeatedly reworked it
"He" being the operative word. Third parties aren't doing their own custom distributions. This becomes a big deal if you can't convince the original creator that something needs fixed.
If you've got a big enough vision that you lock horns with Linus Torvalds on the Linux kernel, you fork it and release anyway. If you have a different vision than Kanye West for the album, good luck getting your version through the courts.
"He" being the operative word. Third parties aren't doing their own custom distributions. This becomes a big deal if you can't convince the original creator that something needs fixed.
If you've got a big enough vision that you lock horns with Linus Torvalds on the Linux kernel, you fork it and release anyway. If you have a different vision than Kanye West for the album, good luck getting your version through the courts.
I wouldn't say "rarely" is representative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene
The code in demoscene productions is not just a means to make art, but in and of itself can be considered a work of art to a savvy viewer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene
The code in demoscene productions is not just a means to make art, but in and of itself can be considered a work of art to a savvy viewer.
I completely agree, but in the universe of software demoscene is extremely rare.
"Art" is mostly meaningless as a concept so I don't understand the point you're making.
We're already there. People indiscriminately pirate software and games as much as they do music.
There's a ton of people giving away very useful software and all the files and tools to easily read and modify it. There's a handful of musicians giving away music too, but I don't know of many giving away the files and tools to read and modify it.
The importance of music and the importance of software is worlds apart. Not to mention there's enough music already made to cover everyone's need. Software is nowhere near that.
Most of today's software is a rehash of crap we already had. It's just the dumb clients render HTML instead of cursor positions and ansi colors now. And the smart clients are smaller.
That is a frightening thing to read. Just because you don't appreciate music doesn't mean you can dismiss out of hand its cultural value. I would rather live in a world without software and computers than one without music, not even close
Are you saying software is unimportant or music is unimportant?
A choice between the two, like choosing to be blind or deaf, I'd choose music, I'd choose blindness.
Music is much more fundamental to the human condition than, <laugh out loud>... software <more laughing>
Gather round the keyboard family, let's code together, you do the functions, I'll write main!
(This is intentionally harshly written, in response to the obvious hyperbole of this "Not to mention there's enough music already made to cover everyone's need" - whatever that is).
I'm aware it's all subjective, but I'll still write this: Music is life, Software is lifestyle.
moetech, find some music that elicits a response from a part of your lizard brain you didn't know existed, that makes you cry with connection. That's just the beginning of the journey.
A choice between the two, like choosing to be blind or deaf, I'd choose music, I'd choose blindness.
Music is much more fundamental to the human condition than, <laugh out loud>... software <more laughing>
Gather round the keyboard family, let's code together, you do the functions, I'll write main!
(This is intentionally harshly written, in response to the obvious hyperbole of this "Not to mention there's enough music already made to cover everyone's need" - whatever that is).
I'm aware it's all subjective, but I'll still write this: Music is life, Software is lifestyle.
moetech, find some music that elicits a response from a part of your lizard brain you didn't know existed, that makes you cry with connection. That's just the beginning of the journey.
>Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career?
Of course not. There is an enormous glut of cultural works, and people's quality of life would not be meaningfully harmed if all commercial production stopped. See:
https://www.gwern.net/Culture-is-not-about-Esthetics
Of course not. There is an enormous glut of cultural works, and people's quality of life would not be meaningfully harmed if all commercial production stopped. See:
https://www.gwern.net/Culture-is-not-about-Esthetics
> Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career?
Instrument practice, sound engineering are a crazy amount of work in order to get to a professional level. It's so bizarre to hear people say things like that, they have 0 consideration for the amount of effort put into the former, just because they can download 1 millions tracks on the internet in one click...
Instrument practice, sound engineering are a crazy amount of work in order to get to a professional level. It's so bizarre to hear people say things like that, they have 0 consideration for the amount of effort put into the former, just because they can download 1 millions tracks on the internet in one click...
There are probably a hundred times more professional-level guitarists than professional guitarists. It’s a ton of work, but it’s a ton of work that a lot of people already put in just for fun.
Professional production is very hard, but it’s also kind of a moving target. A lot of production is trying to hit trends set by other producers so that your music sounds professional itself. It’s largely competitive rather than artistically significant, and there’s some great production that doesn’t sound professional but still works.
Professional production is very hard, but it’s also kind of a moving target. A lot of production is trying to hit trends set by other producers so that your music sounds professional itself. It’s largely competitive rather than artistically significant, and there’s some great production that doesn’t sound professional but still works.
My point is that that crazy amount of work is being wasted on a music career.
Yes, we should. If you want things done well, you want people to be able to make a living doing them. I'd love to see any sources on your claims regarding to music creation - certainly, a huge portion of quality artwork is the result of people being paid for it/creating with the expection that they'll be able to sell it. This has been true for centuries.
> Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career?
Sure, why not?
> And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
Most of the money goes to the few at the top, it's true. How does that change things?
Sure, why not?
> And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
Most of the money goes to the few at the top, it's true. How does that change things?
>How does that change things?
The point is that there won't be a shortage of new music even if everyone stops being paid to make music.
The point is that there won't be a shortage of new music even if everyone stops being paid to make music.
Music gets suckier if there's less incentive to work at it.
I do support some form of copyright - e.g. if you earn money based on my work, you should compensate me accordingly - but not for private, non-commercial use.
There's an overlooked assumption, that art should be a commercial product sold in the marketplace. Maybe some things shouldn't or don't need to be sold in the marketplace. Maybe art should be more like free software (or just be free - let's not parochially limit ourselves to software analogies).
Certainly for 'purposes' or aspects of art - as enlightenment, enrichment, the pinnacle of culture and civilization - free distribution would be better, spreading its benefits more widely. Also, like free-as-in-speech software (sorry), each work of art is part of the creative process for the next one; it can be reused, modified, extracted, etc, so free art would be much better in that respect too.
I understand that artists want to eat and have roofs over their heads. I want a pony. Seriously, perhaps there are other ways to accomplish that. UBI?
Certainly for 'purposes' or aspects of art - as enlightenment, enrichment, the pinnacle of culture and civilization - free distribution would be better, spreading its benefits more widely. Also, like free-as-in-speech software (sorry), each work of art is part of the creative process for the next one; it can be reused, modified, extracted, etc, so free art would be much better in that respect too.
I understand that artists want to eat and have roofs over their heads. I want a pony. Seriously, perhaps there are other ways to accomplish that. UBI?
> Seriously, perhaps there are other ways to accomplish that.
Yet another hidden assumption right there: that art must (or should) come from full-time professional artists (as opposed to hobbyists and/or part-timers).
Yet another hidden assumption right there: that art must (or should) come from full-time professional artists (as opposed to hobbyists and/or part-timers).
It should be 20 years max.
This is why I grew up with zero respect for copyrights. I simply ignore them without consequence. Send me a dcma notification, it goes in the garbage. I dont care, copyrights have become so insane it's easier to just disregard them.
The only problem with this position is that it doesn't go any way to improving things. It's a silent protest. This opinion is immediately excluded because it's non-participatory.
It's a conundrum.
It's a conundrum.
I don't have a goal to "improve things" sometimes and in this particular case I just don't care. it really isnt a conundrum and it's not a silent protest, I just ignore the copyright without a thought and continue on with my day.
[deleted]
It's hard to imagine that this term won't be extended again before 2067!