In Serving Big Company Interests, Copyright Is in Crisis
eff.org
eff.org
"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
There currently not public support for more extension so the extensions will most likely end.
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.
Once small producers get locked out, they stay locked out.
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.
The DMCA is certainly also law.
Her dad was a shareholder and sat on the board of said company that sold to the "tycoon". Horrible example.
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.
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.
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.
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
The copywriters are going to do that they do. I'm going to do what I do with no guilt felt
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.
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.
How many laws are you going to break today?
I want to buy a book in my mother language (Italian), but I live in Canada. The rights for the italian translation have not been purchased by anyone in Canada, so I cannot buy it here (the book is sold only in English). To buy the italian book though, I need to buy it from. Italy, using an italian address for billing. This is illegal, since I live in Canada and have no italian address. Lying on an official document can be punished with 2 years incarceration. So my only option to buy such book is traveling to Italy and buy it in a physical shop. Great for pollution, and sets the book price at something insane.
Alternatively, I can pirate it.
If I steal your car, you no longer have a car and are deprived of the benefits. If I pirate your book, you are deprived of the vague possibility of some income from me -- there's no guarantee I would have bought your book if I could afford it, and there was no possibility of piracy. You still have the book though.
Then there's the whole area of pirating things you already bought because of the offensive forced trailers and warnings on DVDs, or rampant copy protection that causes machine issues, or finding an ancient original CD, or simply because music piracy is as quick but less hassle than ripping a CD and adding artwork.
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.