[eutropia]

Seems, neutral to positive then? Excepting the part where perpetual copyright seems to be the future (not like this bill would have passed if it took an activist stance against it).

Still, am I the only one who instantly thought that the title "Music Modernization Act" meant that some horrible draconian policy was being implemented, given the past abuses of the "simple name of a bill"?

[PlanarFreak]

For those trying to parse this thread (like myself), "perpetual copyright" refers to the "CLASSICS Act" that's bundled with the Music Modernization Act. It retroactively extends federal copyright protection to recordings from 1923 to 1972, up to 2067 for recordings between '57 and '72.

IMO it's not the worst, but it opens the door to more Mickey Mouse antics further down the road.

[Bartweiss]

This is the biggest issue I see with the act, but I don't think it's too terrible.

'57 recording will end up with 110 years of copyright instead of the normal 95, but 1923 recordings will unambiguously enter public domain three years from now.

In return, we get pre-'72 music standardized under federal copyright law. It'll streamline licensing, and given that state copyright laws can allow for perpetual copyright, I'm hopeful this still represents a modest improvement.

[whatshisface]

The bill's name is too neutral to be terrifying, what would really send us running for the hills would be something like a Protect and Serve Musicians for the Greater Good while Supporting the Interests of the Public act.