Copyright Extension: Here's the Sonny Bono's Ghost Act

[doubleshuffle]

Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right—basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?)—for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don’t have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.

https://www.wired.com/story/congress...-is-misguided/

Here's the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/2393/text

[DuckieTigger]

Archives with recordings of music from the 1930s or 1940s would now have to clear permission before streaming their musical content even if the underlying work was in the public domain.

That doesn't make any sense. Either something is in the PD or it is not.

[drjenkins]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That doesn't make any sense. Either something is in the PD or it is not.

You are right that it doesn't make sense, but the Supreme Court of the United States says it can be done.
Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works

Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 6-2 ruling, the court said that, just because material enters the public domain, it is not "territory that works may never exit."

The 'Wednesday' referred to above was January 18, 2012.

[Greg Anos]

Plenty of time for more extension stuff to be buried in "must pass" legislations. . .

[arjaybe]

When I saw this story, I assumed it must be a hoax. Things that look this stupid usually are hoax news.

[sealbeater]

The House of Mouse will not be denied.

This is not what copyright was designed for.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

When I saw this story, I assumed it must be a hoax. Things that look this stupid usually are hoax news.

I guarantee this is not a hoax.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I guarantee this is not a hoax.

Back when the DMCA was passed, there was a key provision embedded in it at the last minute by a staffer. That staffer was working for the RIAA less than a month later. Hiding Easter Eggs in bills is what these guys do. So what songs were recorded before 1972? I can assure you that someone got paid some good money to put this in.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

So what songs were recorded before 1972? I can assure you that someone got paid some good money to put this in.

Surely it isn't the Beatles' catalog

[theducks]

Elvis?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Surely it isn't the Beatles' catalog

Highly depends how the remasters of that collection is treated under the law. I doubt anything you can buy or stream is anything but the remasters nowadays.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Surely it isn't the Beatles' catalog

Maybe Muddy Waters...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Plenty of time for more extension stuff to be buried in "must pass" legislations. . .

If I'm going to get paranoid, it seems that the House has passed a somewhat similar but not identical bill:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...hr5447/summary

Would there then be a conference committee coming up where they could possibly sneak in a provision on books, something mercifully missing from all the current bills?

Here's the thoroughly bipartisan Senate co-sponsor list:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...clr=cga-member

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

but the Supreme Court of the United States says it can be done.

That's not what the Supreme court said.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If I'm going to get paranoid, it seems that the House has passed a somewhat similar but not identical bill:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...hr5447/summary

Would there then be a conference committee coming up where they could possibly sneak in a provision on books, something mercifully missing from all the current bills?

Here's the thoroughly bipartisan Senate co-sponsor list:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...clr=cga-member

Yes, it could be added in conference committee. . . .