The US Senate Unanimously Passes the Orrin G. Hatch Music Modernization Act

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,086
The US Senate has passed the Orrin G. Hatch Music Modernization Act. This law lays the framework and thus 'modernizes' for how artists should be compensated for their works in a digital age. The US Senate used a process called 'hotlining' where a bill is moved forward quickly when it has unanimous support. There were a couple of senators opposed to the bill on behalf of SiriusXM, but they eventually capitulated and supported the bill. The bill now goes before the United States House of Representatives for a vote where it is expected to pass as it did earlier this year.

"Artists who made music prior to 1972 are getting a raw financial deal because of an antiquated loophole in our legal system. Our bill will close that loophole and finally give the recognition and compensation that these artists deserve. Louisiana is the birthplace of jazz. Artists like Fats Domino who contributed to that uniquely New Orleans sound are pioneers. They deserve fair protection and payment for their contributions," said Kennedy. "I am proud to be a part of this effort."
 
So they used a process called hotlining, and the law concerns how artists are compensated. Should have called it the Hotline Bling Act. :D
 
Lateralus said:
So they used a process called hotlining, and the law concerns how artists are compensated. Should have called it the Hotline Bling Act. :D
Click to expand...

ba_dum_tss_pirates_band_of_misfits.gif
 
cageymaru said:
...
"Artists who made music prior to 1972 are getting a raw financial deal because of an antiquated loophole in our legal system. Our bill will close that loophole and finally give the recognition and compensation that these artists deserve. Louisiana is the birthplace of jazz. Artists like Fats Domino who contributed to that uniquely New Orleans sound are pioneers. They deserve fair protection and payment for their contributions," said Kennedy. "I am proud to be a part of this effort."
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that the artists in question will see a a fair proportion of the payments. Apart from that, more than 50 years of copy monopoly protection is, imo, rather excessive and counter to the professed goal of encouraging arts and sciences.
 
I haven't read any part of the proposed legislation (or any part of any bills that were tacked on to the proposed legislation), but I applaud our lawmakers trying to do something useful. This is the only thing I've seen through several federal cycles that seems non-partisan and worthy of a thoughtful overhaul, so I give it a thumbs up just to encourage them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jtal
like this
There were a couple of senators opposed to the bill on behalf of SiriusXM, but they eventually capitulated and supported the bill.
Click to expand...

These scumbags, they take SiriusXM's much needed money and then don't hold up their end of the agreement.

Is there no honor in being a crooked politician these days? For shame.
 
"Artists who made music prior to 1972 are getting a raw financial deal because of an antiquated loophole in our legal system. Our bill will close that loophole and finally give the recognition and compensation that these artists deserve. Louisiana is the birthplace of jazz. Artists like Fats Domino who contributed to that uniquely New Orleans sound are pioneers. They deserve fair protection and payment for their contributions," said Kennedy. "I am proud to be a part of this effort."

Fats Domino died almost a year ago. He doesn't need payment anymore.
 
Armenius said:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/...major-fix-older-recordings-will-belong-public

Newest article from the EFF. Copyright is still too damned long.
Click to expand...
Copyright went from 25 yrs to 50 yrs to 75 yrs. That covers all the people living. Now they want to cover the past before we were born. You wait, next they will go back to Beethoven, Mozart, etc claiming their relatives, great great great great great grand children should get some compensation. This is all about the music labels controlling all music ever created.
 
Disney had a HUGE hand in that once all of Walt's stuff was going to be fair use.
 
If I publish a song and years later don't get royalties from places charging money to listen to songs, then god damn I want my money
the song was mine.
Not sure why you wouldn't like this
 
TheOne&OnlyZeke said:
If I publish a song and years later don't get royalties from places charging money to listen to songs, then god damn I want my money
the song was mine.
Not sure why you wouldn't like this
Click to expand...
If I design a bridge, and years later I don't get money from people crossing it, then god damn I want my money?
The bridge was mine!
 
M76 said:
If I design a bridge, and years later I don't get money from people crossing it, then god damn I want my money?
The bridge was mine!
Click to expand...
You were paid to design it.
Musicians mainly aren't 'Hired' to create music. They create it and publish it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
TheOne&OnlyZeke said:
You were paid to design it.
Musicians mainly aren't 'Hired' to create music. They create it and publish it.
Click to expand...
Musicians are paid by their publishers to create music. So no, they're not hired, they're signed, and they get signing fees.

Just because musicians used to get paid for things they did decades ago, doesn't mean it's a good system and a fair system.
Their compensation should be limited to record sales and their ticket sales. Royalties are icky business. I don't believe it is fair that multi millionaire musicians get handouts because their song is performed at little Billie's 7th birthday party.
 
tetris42 said:
If our modern Congress is unanimous about anything, that alone has me concerned.
Click to expand...
Unity scares the fuck out of me, too. Maybe that's incredibly cynical, but damn it, I've earned that cynicism.


opfreak said:
if its bipartisan its the real shit
Click to expand...
Patriot Act.

Edit: Wait, that wasn't unanimous, a bunch of commie Dems refused to be good Americans and eat their FREEDOM Fries.
 
TheOne&OnlyZeke said:
If I publish a song and years later don't get royalties from places charging money to listen to songs, then god damn I want my money
the song was mine.
Not sure why you wouldn't like this
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with this on one rather important condition: it's the original authors/musicians/creators who receive most of the royalties. Imo, it's more important that any "second hand" copyrights should be severely restricted than that copyrights themselves are.
 
My guess is the fine print makes it so that the individual's copyright authority which is longer than a corporations potentially can be signed over in a contract. Not the the artist will actually get more money
, the corporation will probably take on the artist's death + 70 years limit.
 
Last edited:
emphy said:
I'd be fine with this on one rather important condition: it's the original authors/musicians/creators who receive most of the royalties. Imo, it's more important that any "second hand" copyrights should be severely restricted than that copyrights themselves are.
Click to expand...
Oh yea. Original only as much as possible. I'd hate for this to be a revenue generator for publishers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top