Replies

>> Playing a record at a party, or loaning it to a friend will be a crime <<

Sorta hard to enforce, doncha think? I imagine non-commercial uses will be exempt, just as today you can sing “Happy Birthday” at a non-commercial event w/o paying a fee to an organization like BMI or ASCAP. (I’m told, however, that the song is still under copyright protection for commercial uses.)

>> Will playing the record more than once be a crime as well? <<

For commercial use? No, the “rights” organizations (RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, maybe others) would probably prefer blanket licenses, like they used to have for small restaurants and like I guess they still have for radio stations. And the cost of a license would probably be tied to the commercial enterprise’s revenue.

>> Hippy rockers might get some retirement pay, something I’m all for <<

Not me. Let ‘em rot in whatever rat holes they’ve been inhabiting for the last 30 years.

>> This proposal was written by the RIAA. If it passes and if they’re selling any stock, I’m buying <<

Uh, I think you’d have to be a recording company to join the Association.

>> There will be no music on the radio <<

What about live performances? I think the world needs more of such entertainment.

>> There will be no refuge in folk song covers. Led Zeppelin will have to pay retroactive royalties to Memphis Minny’s descendants <<

That’s already the case. Old songs have long been protected, thanks to the retrospective copyright law that Congress enacted 15 or 20 years ago. The proposed new regs would cover the performance components of old recordings, with the new royalties going to the performers or the recording companies or maybe both. Publishers and songwriters would appear not to benefit anew, since they are already protected.

>> I wonder if visual artists can get on the bandwagon? Maybe we could set up a reasonable fee schedule, like 5 cents a glance. Then descendants of artists could charge the museums for a piece of the action. Such a boon to creativity! <<

Hey, now you’re really onto something. I’m with you!

>> Of course, the RIAA will not be able to enforce every potential instance of non-compliance. They’ll need help. Get those resume’s up to date’s; it’s going to be a goldmine <<

Yeah, not only the lawyers could strike gold, but also some of those worn-out hippy rockers you mentioned might get work. Give ‘em a badge and a gun, then put ‘em out in the trenches!

Playing a record at a party, or loaning it to a friend will be a crime <
"Sorta hard to enforce, doncha think? I imagine non-commercial uses will be exempt,"
Not that hard-- in Cuba everybody's a cop. We haven't got that far to go.
I wonder if NPR, claimed to be a "nonprofit," has to pay the RIAA "royalties." (The artists get little if any actual royalties.)
Maybe we should all form non-profits. It seems very profitable.

">> Hippy rockers..."
" Let ‘em rot..."
Where's your sense of charity? Besides, have you turned on the radio lately?

Old songs have long been protected, thanks to the retrospective copyright law that Congress enacted 15 or 20 years ago.

That was Clinton's doing. I'm convinced it was a quid pro quo; you'll recall there was nothing he wouldn't sell for a few campaign bucks. It smells as bad now as it did back then. Remember, that was back in the day when the RIAA was suing private citizens into bankruptcy--at least ones who had anything--because their kid neglected to click off the "share" button on their download app. Most parents were unaware and considered it akin to the radio.

If somebody plays a song and I like it, I'll buy the record or maybe go to the show. I don't care what they look or smell like. But at the same time, I don't feel anyone's obliged to pump quarters into them like some parking meter.

I'd say make the copyrights on recordings good for five years--half the span of a patent. Seems fair to me, considering the expense of the patent and the relative benefit to society.

When people talk about "intellectual property" I get 'skeeved'* out. Intangibles-intellectual clouds,light rays,electric pulses or sound waves are not property. If you're a scholar, sell a book. There are enough penalties for plagiarism. If you're a singer, sell the record or tickets. "Intellectual property" as a concept is an open invitation to havoc: It can only be enforced randomly. It's impossible to know when you've done something that will make you vulnerable; this is already happening in the software industry. Worst of all, it opens the door of your home to professional snoops.

*skeeve
"(verb) to gross out; to digust; to make your skin crawl, sometimes with undertones of sexual deviance/perversion"
(from Urban Dictionary) I recently heard my kid use it. I don't think anyone's got a copyright, so feel free.