back to article US Congress mulls expanding copyright yet again – to 144 years

The US Congress is looking to effectively extend copyright on some sound recordings to a staggering 144 years – making it the twelfth time copyright rules have been extended or expanded since the 1970s. The CLASSICS Act being debated in the Senate and House would create a new federal copyright rule for sound recordings made …

Page:

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

        "Seems pretty same to me."

        Thanks defiler.

        I do agree with some other posters. in essence. that creative works, especially culturally significant ones should become part of the public domain before the heat death of the universe. If the spirit of the Copyright length is to allow the creator to leave a legacy for his family, 40 years is more than enough even if they die rather young (assuming the legacy is worth something). 70 years is far too long but it had to be put there to allow large entertainment companies to extend corporate owned copyright to be as long as they are otherwise it's an easy dodge to just form a corporate entity to be the holding company for all of ones works.

    1. JohnFen

      Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

      "Copyright is the protection of a creative work for the benefit of the creator. "

      No, that's not its purpose at all.

      1. Public Citizen

        Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

        The protection goes to the disseminator [be it publisher/distributor/exhibitor] not to the creator.

        Example: Walt Disney was only a middling fair draftsman/animator. His real talent was recognizing and developing the people with superior talent and molding them into teams that produced popular and profitable works. The actual creators were fairly compensated for their work, the Disney Brothers made their fortunes from it.

        All these people are long dead now, yet the company, with which the surviving members of the family have no connection other than stock ownership, seeks to assert an ever extending copyright to the work of those not just long past but generations past.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

          "The actual creators were fairly compensated for their work, the Disney Brothers made their fortunes from it."

          Not even that, Disney never paid fair salaries. They got talents just because they couldn't find any other paying job.

          Literally by having money when others didn't.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

      "Copyright is the protection of a creative work for the benefit of the creator."

      That's the sales argument for it but it's BS and it has been BS since MPAA/RIAA made money from recordings, no idea exactly when, but pre-WWII anyway.

      It's a cartel for ultrarich corporations. Once again one less as Sony bought majority of EMI.

      And paid puppets in Congress extend the cartel once again. How much EMI paid them for that? Tens of millions, no doubt about that.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

      ", Copyright is automatic any time you make a creative work. "

      Which is thoroughly stupid idea and plays only to major corporations, i.e. the Cartel: No individual ever has money to protect their copyright in court. Doubly that against any big player or major corporation.

      Large players know this, so they steal everything without care. You should also know that.

      Also: Almost exactly 100% of "creative work" is not at all creative and shouldn't be covered by copyright at all. Billions of selfies in the internet? No way.

      Copyright should be something you apply for and pay a (small) fee for it. And only that, just like patent in civilized world (=outside of US). US patent system is totally broken and useless.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

        "Almost exactly 100% of "creative work" is not at all creative and shouldn't be covered by copyright at all. Billions of selfies in the internet? No way."

        Don't be silly. Creators don't have any effective rights over internet posted materials. Just read the user licence terms for Facebook, et al. If you post it, they have unlimited use of the material, including sub-licensing on most social media sites.

        You post it, you lose it.

        Lovely for the corporations, not so good for you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The current scheme is not too bad.

        "Copyright should be something you apply for and pay a (small) fee for it. "

        In which case, most material would be public domain, because people can't afford to pay fees or spend the time, for all the things they create, unless they don't create much at all... until some corporation pays the fee on 'found' material with no known author (not that they looked)... if necessary making a tiny change to make it 'theirs'.

  1. alain williams Silver badge

    Congress has screwed up

    They did it better in 1998 when they extended copyright by 20 years. This meant that 20 years later they were showered with yet more mouse gold. This time, extending by 50 years, means that they will not get any more bribes ^w research contributions for a looong time.

    They should, at least, make the mouse pay!

    PS: 20 years in 1998, actually a bit more complicated, but still.

    1. theOtherJT Silver badge

      Re: Congress has screwed up

      Ah, but since it's for the benefit of the mouse that this was done in the first place, the mouse is the one who pushed for the length of the extension. No need to pay more than you have to, eh?

  2. Morrie Wyatt
    Coat

    144 years?

    That would be a gross over extension of copyright.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fortunately US law doesn't apply in the free world...

    Though of course, the UK will be happy to follow their lead post Brexit - not that being in the EU ever did much to prevent UK.gov salivating at every US corporate cash grab...

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Fortunately US law doesn't apply in the free world...

      "Though of course, the UK will be happy to follow their lead post Brexit - not that being in the EU ever did much to prevent UK.gov salivating at every US corporate cash grab..."

      But not forgetting that copyright across Europe was death+n years, depending on which country you were in, death+50 years in the UK. But when it came to the EU "harmonising" the copyright laws across the EU members, rather than find an average, it was decided that Germany's death+70 years, the highest in the EU would be the new gold standard. I suspect the lobbying by the corporate copyright holds played a big part in that decision. Suddenly, enormous amounts of public domain works across the EU were now back in copyright, in some case for another 50+ years. Yes, that's correct, it was effectively a retroactive law with dispensation for already in progress projects which were using "public domain" works now back in copyright.

  4. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Copyright law is just broken and the only ones who are benefiting a the music and movie studios. I never understood why copyright should even extend beyond a persons death. Everyone else in 'normal' jobs gets paid for their work until they leave, retire or die. If a plumber, accountant, IT support worker etc died tomorrow would you expect to carry on paying for work they had already done for another 80 years?

    If you want your family to be financially secure after your death get life insurance or leave them money in your will why should creative artists have special laws that only apply to them?

  5. Mage Silver badge
    Devil

    Corporate Theft

    This doesn't benefit any creator or artist. Only already rich Corporations.

    Even the UK extension to Life + 70 is wrong. It should be Life + 25 (so as to leave something to the creators children).

    It should not be more than 25 years from initial publishing if no individual or band is getting royalty. Corporations receiving ALL the royalties should be limited to a Generation.

    Also anything copyright should actually be published, available at a reasonable price. It should enter public domain if work is unavailable to purchase at a reasonable price for 5 years.

    USA Radio already doesn't pay full royalties. There are creator rights AND performance rights. What Spotify pays is too little, but YouTube is even worse. Google and Pinterest are copyright parasites.

    Copyright is important so that creators and performers get paid. Also so companies make a return on their investment. But this is just pure corporate greed.

  6. Flexdream

    Congress?

    ".. your representatives in Congress .."

    Who represents Edinburgh in Blighty?

    1. Nick Kew

      Re: Congress?

      Jockland? How about, you hold Trump's golf course to ransom?

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Congress?

      Nicola Sturgeon?

  7. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Call it what is is - Mickey Mouse law

    The artists are long dead so it's just the Walt Disney Company, founded 1923, wanting more money.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Copyright*, making itself more fucking stupid and irrelevant to joe public by the hour.

    * or how to do one hours actual work and get paid over and over and over again for a century.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fucking Disney

    It's so obvious who's behind this.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting timing

    The copyright claim of the famous Rider-Waite tarot deck is about to end and enter public domain.

    It's a messy situation because the original artist, Pamela Colman-Smith had no descendants, the art's production also involved two other men: Waite and Smith, and the rights to her artwork eventually made its way to U.S. Games Systems, Inc, which has been fairly litigious in seeking its 'pound of flesh' according to irate tarot enthusiasts.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But copyright holders – typically large corporations – don't want the -cost- of having to actively assert their rights...

    FTFY

  12. Sanguma
    Flame

    Pity the poor starving undead zombies

    If the zombies don't get paid, they can't be incentivized to create, can they? And if the dead authors don't get their works protected, they won't write, will they? The living dead need their incentives to be creative.

    So far, only Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has ever written a posthumous book. Write to your Congresscritter and demand that the Walt Disney Corp start publishing the works that Walt Disney himself created after his death, when they demanded that he be posthumously compensated for the works he created prehumously. Demand to see the Walt Disney Corp books so we can see whether or not the Walt Disney Corp has in fact paid Walt Disney posthumously.

    And tell them you'll set the zombies after them if they don't.

  13. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Dummies Bank Rolling Wannabe Artists Failing Spectacularly to Deliver Novel Prime Future Content

    Bankrupt of new ideas for recording and streaming, old decrepit systems stoop to try and conquer/retain hearts and minds with golden oldies reminding punters of that which they cannot profit from, for old decrepit systems are dependent upon the revenue streams they have dreamed up to server themselves from historical artefacts?

    Yes, it is no more complex than that .... the desperate rear guard action of a civilisation in decline and retreat?

  14. Jamie Jones Silver badge
    Stop

    I have a BIG disagreement with one of your points

    While it's understandable that the enormous value of music ranging from Ella Fitzgerald to Elvis Presley to David Bowie should be protected, critics are frustrated that lawmakers are effectively condemning vast swathes of culturally important recordings to the dustbin of history by extending a blanket copyright rather than requiring copyright holders to assert their rights.

    I generally agreed with the article, but you contradict your argument by saying "some" music is valuable, and so deserves to be protected for longer... That sort of philosophy ONLY means extending copyright for everything, else why is something "culturally important" considered off limits just because it's still making a buck for the artists great-great grandson (or more likely, the publishing company)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I have a BIG disagreement with one of your points

      > While it's understandable that the enormous value of music ranging from Ella Fitzgerald to Elvis Presley to David Bowie should be protected

      Arguably that's the wrong way round: those who have already made millions out of their work are the ones who need protecting the least.

      Especially if they're dead, as are all three of those examples.

  15. Vanir
    Joke

    I hold the copyright on truth

    but it hasn't done me any good!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I hold the copyright on truth

      sorry for your luck :(

    2. Daniel von Asmuth
      Mushroom

      The upside

      Hitler's Mein Kampf entered the public domain 70 years after his death and will now become proscribed again.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A movie analogy

    It's easier to produce remakes and formulaic (e.g. superhero genre) movies than to produce new and original material. The same goes for 'sampling' that is done in the music recording industry.

    Therefore, these entities, usually corporations, think it's more convenient to extend copyright for as long as possible, and reel in the passive income through royalty or licensing payments. The lawyers and lobbyists would take care of that.

    It doesn't matter if the content creator dies... in fact, sometimes it is more expedient that the content creator dies. Michael Jackson found out the hard way. He was battling Sony for the rights to some music catalogue right up until his untimely death.

    My opinion is that copyright protection should last no longer than 60 years; other variables such as an increasing lifespan should have no influence on this. And it should neither be extended nor shortened.

  17. doug_bostrom

    Same congress that can ask the question, "is sea level rise due to rocks falling in the ocean?"

    Calculated stupidity.

    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Actually, that's a good question. Do you know how much land the world's rivers carry into the oceans every year?

  18. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    I'd hoped for more accuracy from The Register..

    ...Originally copyright was seen as something that would extend to the end of someone's life and this a certain amount of time after their death. It was, after all, their work and so once they were gone, it didn't serve any purpose to have its rights controlled....

    Originally, copyright was for a period of 14 years, plus another 14 if you renewed. See Statute of Anne

    The concept was a 'bargain' between a creative person and society. Society would grant a creator a monopoly for a limited period to benefit from their ideas, if, in return, society could make free use of them after that time. There was, orignally, no concept of a creator holding rights to the idea until they died, let alone allowing the idea to be purchased by a corporation and kept from society forever.

    Interestingly, during the copyright negotiations which led up to the 'Mickey Mouse' laws in the US, a senator had this point explained to him when he proposed a 'forever' date. He drafted a reply calling for copyright to last "forever minus one day"....

  19. gz3zbz

    You wouldn't steal a car

    Copyright holders are fond of telling the public that breaches of copyright are akin to theft, and have secured some notable prosecutions. Conversely, trying to extend copyright must also be theft, by copyright holders, from the public. Can we have some prosecutions?

  20. Domino
    Alert

    Cultural appropriation and control

    It seems to me that the longer copyright is, the more chance there is that the largest companies will end up owning all the culturally significant copyrights (eg Disney + Marvel + Star Wars etc). There's a real risk to societies development in setting up this type of long term cultural appropriation by gatekeeper companies. What is promoted as a benefit to creatives can also be used to gag them and control derivative works. Can culture continue to grow incrementally when no one alive remembers the context and impact of the original work by the time it becomes public domain?

  21. FIA Silver badge

    While it's understandable that the enormous value of music ranging from Ella Fitzgerald to Elvis Presley to David Bowie should be protected,

    Can someone explain this to me? Why is it understandable?? I'm confused. What 'value' are you protecting? IT's not the cultural value that would be realised if these were in the public domain?

    I get that if I create something it should be protected for a time so I can benefit from it and others who didn't contribute are prevented from benefiting without my say so.

    But why should someone receive protection long after their death? My descendants won't receive payment for the software I write? If I were a cabinet maker, my descendants wouldn't receive payment for resale of my work after I die? despite it potentially having taken a lot of skill and effort on my part??

    I mean I'm over 40, likely over half way through my life, yet the work of someone who died before I was born is still protected by copyright? How is that beneficial to society as a whole, or indeed fair?

  22. Long John Silver

    'Intellectual property' is illusory

    Arrival of the digital era makes plain a truth hitherto obscured. Previously, information (e.g. cultural artefacts) was conveyed on physical media (e.g. paper and vinyl disks). 'Medium' and 'message' were inseparable; the medium, being physical, could be traded according to conventional market-economics based on scarcity and price discovery. It was 'obvious' the message was being traded because it was inseparable from the medium. Moreover, law was introduced enabling distribution of 'messages' to be a (time period limited) monopoly.

    Digital representation of cultural artefacts breaks the tie between one instance of the message and one particular instance of the substrate conveying it (medium). Thereby, 'scarcity' is abolished.

    Digital sequences are capable of being copied and transmitted without degradation; this not being so for analogue representation. Moreover, copying entails negligible expense, and transmission likewise. The upshot is that digital sequences are incapable of being 'owned' in the manner of physical objects. Sequences cannot be stolen because the alleged 'owner' has not been deprived of anything. Also, once loose, they cannot be corralled; this despite efforts to apply anachronistic law and technical obstacles (e.g. Digital Rights Management). The act of creation may be likened to discovery of a particularly interesting sequence in the Platonic Heaven containing all conceivable sequences of given lengths.

    So, regardless of objection raised by people stuck in nineteenth century modes of thought, copyright cannot be enforced. That is a pragmatic rather than moral or legal statement. Disobedience to copyright abounds and increases. Mainly this results from restrictive practices and price gouging by so-called rights' holders. Nevertheless, there is compelling reason supporting the contention that 'intellectual property' (here we concentrate on copyright) cannot exist and the specious notion of copyright impairs rather than promotes creative activity.

    Limitations to copyright's reach (e.g. 'fair use') were considered at its inception but have proven ineffective at providing safe ground for truly creative activity. This arises from severe restriction on production of 'derivative' works. The simple fact is all works are derivative else they would lack context and their cultural worth would be ignored. The greatest among creative historical figures acknowledged debt (certainly not the monetary kind) to their intellectual forebears. Sometimes, composers would openly base a work on variations on a theme from somebody else's works and make proper attribution/homage. These days, woe betide anyone daring to produce 'Variations on the theme of the Beatles' "It's a hard days night"; mercifully, nobody has bothered.

    There is more to say, but not now. The argument proceeds by looking at how 'entitlement to attribution" replaces copyright. It is shown that truly creative people are able to raise income, by various means, from those admiring their works. These days, via the Internet, creative individuals can interact directly with their 'audience' without need of rights' holding intermediaries. Members of the audience, instead of being passive 'consumers' can participate in creative dialogue and mess around with derivative ideas (how about writing an alternative ending to a 'Harry Potter' story?). The grand losers in all this shall be copyright cartels and middlemen with distribution 'rights'. Expression of creative thought shall benefit, and in absence of price-gouging cartels, the public shall have disposable income available to promote activity by those they admire.

  23. WereWoof

    I do have a question: If, say I were to create a cartoon character for a film that I made in say 1960 and copyrighted that character, if then in 1970 I made a 2nd film with the same character, would that extend the copyright on that character for another 10 years? IANAL (obviously) I am just curious to know.

    1. Charles 9

      The character itself is not subject to copyright. If that character is significant to your trade (like Mickey Mouse is to Disney), you can declare that character a trademark for your business (a trademark is basically something that identifies your business). You can even apply to the USPTO to register the trademark, subject to limitations based on originality (the character of Mickey Mouse is a registered trademark of Disney). The films you made with that character ARE subject to copyright.

      Trademarks and copyrights are different things with their own boundaries of use based somewhat on terms you set. Unlike copyrights, trademarks are not automatic and must at least be declared (but don't have to be registered; it's a judgment based on the mark's significance to you).

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "I do have a question: If, say I were to create a cartoon character for a film that I made in say 1960 and copyrighted that character, if then in 1970 I made a 2nd film with the same character, would that extend the copyright on that character for another 10 years? IANAL (obviously) I am just curious to know."

      Copyright doesn't protect an idea, only a tangible expression of that idea. You would have to get a Trademark or patent to protect the character.

  24. JimBlueMK

    Market forces

    remind me again about markets and how the Govt should not interfere in the operation of said markets.

    That damned socialist government in the US always stopping the free market from workng.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Market forces

      Remind me again about how unfettered markets can be just as bad as state-run markets? I keep thinking back to the Gilded Age when big enterprise got big enough to bribe the governments instead of the other way around.

  25. hayzoos

    Ludicrous

    I am not creative enough to live off my creativity. I have created some works worthy of copyright though.

    My descendants do not deserve ongoing remuneration of use of my creative work from 20 years ago. They can have what is left over from all I have received during my lifetime after settling all my debts. The law as it stands now relieves them of my debts not so settled.

    Copyright should not begin until published. I have works created many years ago that I have not yet published. I should be able to pass these on to descendants for publication and subsequent copyright protection. Life of the creator should not matter. X number of years from publication should. This also simplifies corporate or real person ownership. 14 years seems reasonable to me.

    Prolific creators would have no trouble living off their creations and supporting a whole cadre of promoters, producers, marketers, agents, lawyers, and the like, even extended family, within the 14 year limit of each piece.

    I once tried to produce personal copies of a professional looking photograph I created at a large retail outlet. They were not going to allow me to have the copies I paid them to produce, with no refund. They said this looks like a copyrighted image. I said it very well could be if it were published, but it is not, and I produced the image, therefore I own it. After a bit of back and forth with a couple of supervisors, they "allowed" me to have the copies.

    What good is 144 years to me? Even if I could produce enough to live off my creativity, I am not going to benefit from 144 years worth of revenue. Relatively, very few works can be leveraged to have revenue for 144 years.

  26. boidsonly

    For all the Conservative bashing on here, the liberals are the goobers benefiting from this extension. America is owned by the Music, Print and Movie Industry-all owned by the lunatic fringe left.

  27. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Hail to the coyrights!

    They will enable Michael Jackson and David Bowie to be able to live from their hard work.

  28. MachDiamond Silver badge

    The cess pool of the music industry

    Creativity and business sense are often opposite and exclusive traits. Many musicians and bands get completely blindsided by record companies and happily sign away all of their rights to their music without a backward glance. Very few are savvy enough to understand what's in the contracts they are signing and how that will affect them even a year later. All a record company needs to do is offer them a paltry sum of money to "sign" with the company. The record company will then put them in the studio (belonging to the record company) at a ruinous hourly rate that will be buried somewhere in the fine print and charged back to the band as an "advance against sales" and provide them with a "producer" (cost plus a fat percentage back to the record company) and gleefully allow the band to twiddle around for the length of time the record company thinks the band's cut might be on prospective sales. The last 7-10 days is when all of the final tracks are likely to be cut. On the side will be a publishing deal. Then there will be a management contract that chips away more money. The record company may even organize a tour in support of the album where the expenses are charged back to the band along with another large cut of any proceeds. The final outcome is the record company can make a pile of money and the "band" winds up owing them a ship-ton of dosh and 2 more albums and can't record anything else until they pay up or fulfill their contract and can be prohibited from performing their songs that they signed away the performance rights to along with the "mechanical" rights to the recording of the album.

    It's a rotten quagmire that musicians are still happy to jump into. The fact that the large record companies can wind up holding the Copyright on a bunch of music isn't the fault of Copyright, it's the naiveté inherent with many musicians. There are two sides to the creative arts, the creative and the business. If you don't know anything about business and are faced by a phalanx of entertainment lawyers that do, you are going down. There are lots of people that can play an instrument, paint, sing and, yes, take pictures, but if they don't have any business skills, they are unlikely to make a living from it and may just wind up enriching a bunch of cave fungus.

    BTW, being a working musician that can earn a living is a good second job for a programmer. It's often pretty part time, so you can develop software when not playing instead of just looking out of the window of the van or bus. A friend of mine tours as the drummer for a vintage 70's rock band during much of the year and codes. The combination brings in a fair amount of money and he gets to see the world at the same time. That beats the hell out of a cubicle.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like