Recording Industry Hypocrisy On Full Display In Continuing To Push The CLASSICS Act That Expands Copyright
from the we-see-you dept
In the past few months we've written a few times about the problems with "The CLASSICS Act", which is part of an otherwise mostly unobjectionable copyright modernization bill. You can look back at the previous posts, which get deep into the weeds on the problems of the bill, but the short version is that in an attempt to change how pre-1972 sound recordings are treated (specifically, to get streaming companies to pay a brand new "performance right" license on those works), the CLASSICS Act creates this new right, but leaves out all of the supposedly balancing factors of federal copyright law -- including the time limit before these works should go into the public domain.
Hilariously, for merely pointing out why it seems silly to give the record labels (and, yes, it's mostly the record labels) a brand new right, taking it away from the public, and doing so in a manner that does nothing for the public other than remove a right that it already had (oh, and which does nothing to incentivize the creation of new music), Billboard's famed tech hating columnist Rob Levine has posted a silly screed, claiming that anyone challenging the CLASSICS Act must be an "anti-copyright" activist.
Levine has done this for a decade or so. If you dare to push back on extreme copyright maximalism, and point out that maybe it doesn't make sense, he will tar you as being against musicians or against copyright entirely. But that's silly. The problems of the CLASSICS Act are pretty clear. It is creating a brand new right for copyright holder (i.e., record labels) and in doing so, is taking that right away from the public. Even worse, it's doing so in a manner that doesn't bring with that new right any of the necessary and Constitutionally required protections for the public's own rights -- including the right for the work to move into the public domain in a reasonable amount of time.
Senator Ron Wyden has introduced an alternative bill in the Senate, called the ACCESS to Recordings Act, that takes a more reasonable approach to the issue of pre-1972 sound recordings. Rather than just handing them one new right, while keeping them under obsolete state copyright laws, which block those works from entering the public domain with any other creative work created in the same time, Wyden's bill effectively just puts pre-1972 sound recordings on par with other pre-1972 works (and post-1972 works). It's still creating a brand new right out of thin air for legacy copyright holders -- and it's worth discussing why we want to do that -- but if we see it as a trade-off between giving copyright holders a performance right in exchange for getting those works into the public domain when they belong there, perhaps it's worth while.
Organizations like the Internet Archive have come out strongly in favor of Wyden's bill, and if the RIAA and the record labels (and folks like Rob Levine) are actually being honest in claiming that the CLASSICS Act is necessary to get streaming royalties paid to performers, then they too should support Wyden's bill over the CLASSICS Act. It provides them exactly what they claim they want, a brand new streaming performance right for those works, but does not allow those works to be held out of the public domain for many extra decades.
If they continue to insist that the CLASSICS Act must move forward over the ACCESS Act, then it's a pretty clear statement that they really wish to only give the labels this bit of government welfare, without compensating the public for taking these rights away from them. Let's take a wild guess how this will turn out...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: access to recordings act, classics act, copyright, copyright extension, pre-1972 sound recordings, public domain, ron wyden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just remember, whenever trying to reduce the power and influence of something harmful that's backed by commercial interests comes up, it'll be an uphill battle every time. Whether it be copyright abuse, pollution, abortion, for-profit prisons, predatory lending, or whatever else, the same principle always bites those of us trying to improve things in the butt: there is no money to be made in not selling a product or service. Which translates directly into a disadvantage in lobbying and advertising, right from the start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
coming out of the woodwork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coming out of the woodwork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coming out of the woodwork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coming out of the woodwork
"...but not Masnick, who has quite possibly written more anti-copyright-abuse articles over the last 20 years than all the others put together."
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is, but not for lack of trying. I've no doubt whatsoever that if they thought they could get away with a retroactive expansion of copyright such that what is currently in the public domain was no longer they would do so in a heartbeat.
As is the public domain still exists, it just hasn't had anything added to it in many a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah. Disney would never support any law that would require it to pay royalties to the heirs of the Brothers Grimm, Rudyard Kipling, Carlo Collodi, et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, good point. It's fine and dandy for them to charge others for eternity, but if someone was able to charge them then that would be too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd have to look it up(it's been several years) but I distinctly remember someone talking about their transition between pro-copyright to anti because of people like Levine beating them over the head for not being as extreme as them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Found it.
Irregardless, as someone who used to be a very anti-piracy/pro-copyright advocate I can attest that when you club me over the head, treat me poorly, and attempt to restrict my rights as well, in your efforts to combat this perceived wrong, you are eventually going to lose my active support.
When you club me over the head, treat me poorly, and attempt to further violate my rights in your efforts to combat this perceived wrong, because I am now not actively supporting you, eventually I will actively oppose you.
When you club me over the head, treat me poorly, and attempt to even further restrict my rights, in your attempt to combat this perceived wrong, because I am now actively opposing you, then I will eventually actively support those you are attempting to combat.
Simply because THEY are not trying to club me over the head, treat me poorly, or trying to restrict my rights at every given opportunity.
Presenting an argument that something is morally wrong, while engaging in behavior that is far more morally reprehensible to many people is NOT going to get you a lot of support. - Loki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next Up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next Up
/S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next Up
Try finding sheet music editions of Bach and/or Beethoven that you are actually allowed to copy and you'll find the same principle at work.
Which actually arguably is even "promoting arts and science" by trying to be "better" in some tangible manner in order to outdate the last revision.
But copyright maximalists are too lazy to even feed that cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW,
Always wondered what an artist would do if they could Claim money from drawing a picture, for 50+ years..
RENT a drawing??
Movies Are interesting, as after they have gone threw all the showings, Many can be used as CASH, and sold back and forth, between companies, and Collected, redistribution, and other uses..
Music is about as strange, but there is mostly only a FEW that buy it back and forth..
The REAL problem tends to be the MASS amounts of DATA/MUSIC/AUDIO that they have Kept over the years..
HOW much can you make?
An artist is an ARTIST..a Person TRYING to make money from Music Makes as MUCh music as they can..
BOTH are stimulated to MAKE MORE.. esp. if they want money or to Sate the need to Create.. do they NEED money to create?? only 1 does. The other has no ability to STOP creating.. He could and WILL sit on a corner and Create..
Look at Youtube..MILLIONS are creating new and modernized music..
If they release the old recording, can you Guess how many formats will be created FOR THE PRICE OF NOTHING??? And some odd group wants to make money on YOU FORMAT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-Copyright
You do not get out and about on the Internet much. There are many many creators in many fields to whom two things are important, their work is known and built on, and the work is attributed to them. Some manage to become full time creators by means of patronage, but many produce works for other reasons, including altruism, or because they are part of a community who help each other by sharing knowledge.
Here is a three minute video about why they are on YouTube, from an entrepreneurial business owner, and How the Internet enables them to do what they are doing today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can understand why Congress thinks it is the right thing, they get taken care of for life on our dime but in reality people aren't paid for work they did decades ago.
If a 'sandwich artist' demanded to be paid for that really good sandwich they made a decade ago today, they would mock them. We have one-hit-wonders who long after their 15 minutes are over demand to get top dollar for each replay.
Your creations should last forever, but not the royalties.
Your gatekeepers are robbing you, not the public.
Why demand more rights to make imaginary money when very often your content isn't available at any price to those willing to pay & then complain about piracy instead of seeing it as a failure to meet demand in the market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only way to fix this is to fix the people who run. Running costs $$ so unless you want public funding for people to run your going to end up with the situation you have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wiggly roomy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i love this article
<a href=“http://samuraitoto.net/“ rel=“nofollow”>togel online</a>
<a href=“http://samuraitoto.net/“ rel=“nofollow”>agen togel</a>
<a href=“http://samuraitoto.net/“ rel=“nofollow”>bandar togel</a>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]