>> The proposal, apparently, is to retroactively give copyright protection to musical recordings made before 1972 <<
A very bad idea, which the SCOTUS should (but will not) hold unconstitutional.
To wit:
Article One, Section Eight of the U. S. Constitution gives Congress the power to establish copyright and patent laws for the following reason —
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
On the other hand, RETROACTIVE copyright protection does nothing of the sort, since the works in question have ALREADY been created.
Google needs to provide a translator for articles like this, but from what I’m able to ascertain:
1. Playing a record at a party, or loaning it to a friend will be a crime.
2. Will playing the record more than once be a crime as well? A record’s a performance and a performance is a moment in time. No more freeloading on moments in time.
3. Hippy rockers might get some retirement pay, something I’m all for.
4. This proposal was written by the RIAA. If it passes and if they’re selling any stock, I’m buying.
5. There will be no music on the radio.
6. There will be no refuge in folk song covers. Led Zeppelin will have to pay retroactive royalties to Memphis Minny’s descendants.
7. 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!
8.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!