
In Serving Big Company Interests, Copyright Is in Crisis - dredmorbius
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/serving-big-company-interests-copyright-crisis
======
gnusty_gnurc
The slow but steady creep of copyright extension since the founding of the
country has completely parted ways with legitimate protection for innovation
and creative endeavor. It started out at 14 years with a possible 14 year
extension. We’re now at what - 70 years after the death of the creator??

~~~
acd
Mickey Mouse Protection act is a reason Copyright has been extended to 70
years.

"This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny
Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

There currently not public support for more extension so the extensions will
most likely end.

------
xhkkffbf
I like the EFF but Doctorow but sometimes they're just get things wrong. They
want to blame the law for problems that are just economics. He says that
creators get a raw deal because they're forced to sell at too low a price.

How will weakening copyright make it easier for creators to negotiate a deal?
It won't. They'll get an even weaker deal because they've got less to sell.

The plight of small producers is felt through all industries. At least
copyright gives the creator a HUGE amount of power as soon as the work is
rendered into fixed form. Doctorow should check out how the small wheat
farmers or small fishermen get treated. They're in commodity businesses and
they have nothing unique to sell and little legal protection except for the
laws of theft.

~~~
rectang
Or how much US terrestrial radio stations pay in performer royalties: a big
fat nothing. Stations pay composer/songwriter royalties, but performers get
zilch.

Once small producers get locked out, they stay locked out.

~~~
xhkkffbf
Again, this is not copyright's fault. This is the decision the artist makes
when signing away the rights. If they don't want the airplay, don't sell to a
record label that puts things on the air. Believe it or not, the radio
stations don't play things without permission. Heck, most artists actually pay
for the airtime.

~~~
rectang
> _This is the decision the artist makes when signing away the rights._

 _Nobody_ gets performance royalties out of US terrestrial radio stations —
not individual artists nor record labels that artists may have signed their
rights to as part of a deal.

------
us0r
> think of Taylor Swift's battle to perform her own music at an awards show
> where she was being named "Artist of the Decade" shortly after rights to her
> back catalog were sold to a "tycoon" whom she has a longstanding feud with.

Her dad was a shareholder and sat on the board of said company that sold to
the "tycoon". Horrible example.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Isn't there a compulsory cover license? What's stopping Taylor Swift from
covering her own songs?

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Apparently there would have been potential restrictions on its use. On the
previous point, just because you have someone on a board doesn't mean you get
to control what happens.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
She did have control over what was happening when she signed the rights away.
After that, they're not her rights, so why should she have control?

I doubt she'd like the situation where there were no rights to sell, as it
would severely hamper her ability to sell music at dear prices to the
streaming services. How much do you think Apple paid her for that exclusivity
deal she had with them a while back? And would it have paid that much if
copyright were weakened in the ways that would be required to prevent the
Braun/Borshetta situation?

It just seems like a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

~~~
harimau777
Perhaps there should be something in between the current system and no
copyright at all.

For example, the law could be changed to give the creator of a work certain
rights to use it even if they sell the right to commercialize the work.

~~~
true_religion
As far as I know, the studio is happy to let her perform the work non-
commercially, but that’s not what she wants. She wants to be able to be paid
for a performance.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Again, why does the compulsory cover license not satisfy this?

~~~
true_religion
Because she sold the right to commercialize her work. It's part of the comment
I'm responding to.

Adding a compulsory non-commercial license won't help an artist who wants sell
commercial licences when they are getting started, then unilaterally renege
because they are popular enough to do it all themselves.

------
paulie_a
This is why I grew up ignoring copyright. I just isnt a concept that ever
enters my consciousness.

I'm going to continue to pirate what I want. If the friction to legally buying
something is low I'll buy. Otherwise I simply don't care. I've been doing that
since I was 6 years old and will do it for the rest of my life with no
consequences

I simply don't care

~~~
taylortrusty
I find this disgusting. You’re trying to justify theft, which isn’t what the
article is about.

~~~
paulie_a
I'm not trying to justify theft. I know it's illegal and morally wrong. I just
don't give a shit.

The copywriters are going to do that they do. I'm going to do what I do with
no guilt felt

~~~
Brave-Steak
> morally wrong

Debatable. There are plenty of situations where I feel I'm morally justified
in pirating things. When my values tell me that companies shouldn't be able to
profit off of something they made 20-30 years ago, then I have no moral qualms
in downloading a ROM of a game for a console that isn't made anymore.
Regardless of whether "remasters" or "ports" exist or not. Because in an ideal
world, that wouldn't result in an eternal extension in copyright.

~~~
paulie_a
Sure it's debatable. But at the end of the day I really don't care about
copyright anymore. The concept can basically die in a dumpster fire as far as
I'm concerned

~~~
hedora
Paying to perpetuate a corrupt system is immoral.

These days, I pay a pittance for streaming (lazy), but buy albums directly
from artists. (As in I hand over cash at concert venues)

Perhaps it should be illegal for artists to sign away their own
copyright/distribution rights. Exclusive licensing would still be fine.

Then, artists could sell albums direct to the public. The distributors would
have to keep their cut low enough to account for competition from artists
undercutting them via direct sales.

~~~
paulie_a
We already have laws protecting minors from getting screwed over via their
parents. why not a low that prevents you from selling all rights away for your
intellectual property.

------
belorn
When I hear the extent that music has managed to use copyright to claim
ownership I wonder what the chances are that the supreme court will make an
exception for software. Copyright over the "feel" of music and copyright over
samples sounds concerning close to the discussing around copyright of api and
copyright of header files.

------
szczepano
This is not those companies fault that politics instead of protecting users
privacy and freedom of decisions are protecting their own access to user data.

People managed to survive for generations living in a tribe, city whatever you
call one place yet now politics want to know everything about them to sustain
power they gained using technology they know nothing about.

------
abtinf
Mission creep on the part of the EFF.

------
brighton36
No one cares. I don't say that with Glee. Throw this grievance on the pile
with the rest of them I guess.

