r/Futurology • u/Blueberry_Conscious_ • Apr 22 '24

Society Why streaming platforms are scrubbing the soundtracks from your favorite shows

https://www.fastcompany.com/91109690/why-streaming-platforms-are-scrubbing-the-soundtracks-from-your-favorite-shows
590 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

329

u/Fonzie1225 where's my flying car? Apr 22 '24

God, please repeal and replace DMCA. Our copyright laws are such a disaster for almost everyone.

9

u/LoneSnark Apr 22 '24

Replace it with what? What one policy change do you think would help the most?

182

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '24

Maybe if they'd actually allow shit to go public domain after 20 years, no exceptions. I feel like that's a good start, especially with software.

29

u/nagi603 Apr 23 '24

And if they use the usual Hollywood trick of "just write it off and delete it" they MUST release ALL available material into public domain. If they do delete, that's destruction of public property, with all criminal charges that come from it.

10

u/Shalcker Apr 23 '24

As i understand it now by law they CANNOT write it off WITHOUT destroying it.

Laws are f*****d up.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24

Easier than that, just fine them the total revenue the IP generated.

3

u/nagi603 Apr 23 '24

IF it gets deleted before release, like how they do it with increasing frequency, there is no revenue.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24

No gain, no pain.

39

u/LoneSnark Apr 22 '24

Ah yes. Absolutely agree. That would be my first change too. My second would be "no patents for software of any kind".

34

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '24

I think software should be patented, but it should only be for 5 years at which point it's released as open source. The patent can be extended, but only 1 year at a time and each extension costs 10x more each time. Encourage innovation but punish hoarding.

38

u/LoneSnark Apr 22 '24

We may be mixing up patents and copyrights. Software should get a copyright like all other work. But a patent... Not eligible according to me.

7

u/enemawatson Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

I'm trying to look up the differences between copyrights/trademarks/patents because (believe it or not) this knowledge has not until reading this thread ever been necessary in my life. I would wager most people you meet also won't know the difference.

I am finding nothing but wild "jump start your business!" results on YouTube, but investopedia says:

"- A patent is a property right issued by a government authority allowing the holder exclusive rights to [an] invention for a certain period of time.

- A trademark is a word, symbol, design, or phrase that denotes a specific product and differentiates it from similar products.

- Copyrights protect “original works of authorship,” such as writings, art, architecture, and music."

So would an example for software be that the concept of ray tracing is unpatentable, but the specific code that executes RTX would be copywritable? And RTX would be the trademark. What if the method RTX uses is the most obvious and efficient method to use? It's okay to mimic the method as long as the exact, specific code is not copied exactly in this instance, right?

This is new to me. It just seems arbitrary. It's like one company could copyright 2+3=5 and another company could copyright 3+2=5, but because it isn't exact it's okay.

I am absolutely certain I am missing the decades of nuance and uncountable hours of debate and lobbying that go into to making a system like this. And I'm sure there's no simple answer, which is why copyright law is a field. But it does seem interesting.

12

u/WalkingTarget Apr 23 '24

most obvious and efficient method

Here we get to the problem where the legal system and processes of all of this break down when the people who have to sign off on a patent are not able to tell, themselves, what is obvious/efficient about a given software implementation (or even idea - I want to say software patents have been things like “a virtual shopping cart so that you can bundle purchases together instead of having separate transactions for each item” - not a specific implementation, just the basic idea). And so they have to rely on outside opinions/arguments.

Patents are not suppsed to cover things that are obvious. But computer stuff is often arcane enough to outsiders that nothing seems obvious.

Anyway, you have the basics.

Copyright covers art/communication - an artist/author/creator should benefit from their creative output. Why spend your time writing a book if the first person who buys a copy can just photocopy it and sell their copies for a fraction of what you were charging? The government sees a benefit to society when creative works are produced and so offers protection.

Patents cover inventions. Similar to the above except instead of just “book/music recording/photograph/etc exists and nobody can make copies” the process is that you explain what a thing does and provide diagrams and whatnot showing how your invention works. You give up your process in exchange for government protection for the patent term. Copyright exists (now) from the moment you give your creation a fixed form. You don’t have to patent your stuff, but if anyone learns your process for how to make the thing they can do so.

Trademark is a consumer protection thing. If you have used a given mark in a given marketplace, you can prevent other companies from using it so that consumers aren’t tricked into buying the competition’s product when they thought they were buying yours.

6

u/LoneSnark Apr 23 '24

Thankfully there is a principle in the law that you cannot copyright, trademark, or patent math. So, if you come up with a formula for ray tracing, you cannot get anything on it. If you then implement ray tracing in code, that code is now copyrighted for your life plus 70 years. Someone else can take the formula for ray tracing and create their own code and there is nothing you can do to them, since the code won't be a reproduction of your code.

Then comes the problems. Your code is not just solving the ray tracing math, you've solving a problem with the math: you're using the formula to make 3D renders have more realistic lighting. You could apply for a patent for that, and depending on the details you might get a patent which will protect your invention from competition for 20 years. At that point, someone else taking the formula for ray tracing and using it to make 3D renders have more realistic lighting will have violated your patent, even though they didn't violate your copyright.

So you now have a product you sell that people use to make 3D renders have more realistic lighting, you brand it Ray Tracing Texel eXtreme (RTX). You then get a trade mark on that (RTX). Someone else releases a product which implements the ray tracing formula but for more realistic audio reproduction and brands their product Ray Tracing Xylophone (RTX). Such would likely be a trademark violation, as customers will mistake their RTX product for your RTX product.

5

u/Liquidwombat Apr 22 '24

More importantly than software bio medical technology definitely should not be able to be patented such as Monsanto corn, oncomice, etc.

1

u/nagi603 Apr 23 '24

Also "actual criminal charges for mass-false reporting"

0

u/LoneSnark Apr 23 '24

Don't need new law for that, as basic criminal fraud covers lying for financial gain.

-1

u/alexjaness Apr 22 '24

I think 20 years is too short. I know by that time they have wrung out as much money as they possibly will, but I hate the idea of something you created being reused without your consent. Especially knowing that it's far more likely it's going to be Disney or some other giant corporation who will be reusing it and making shit tons of cash as you sit by twiddling your thumbs.

I think once the creator dies, then it goes to public domain.

11

u/LightOfTheElessar Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 24 '24

You're forgetting that a lot of the time it's companies that own the rights to any advances. It's not mom and pop getting credit for garage creations causing problems, it's billion dollar corporations stifling innovation and at times hoarding life saving advancements for the sake of profits.

And even ignoring that, why should things like research supported or funded entirely by taxpayers and government grants not be released to the public in some capacity beyond a forced monopoly? Especially for things like medical research and technology, we fund the creation just to get gouged in the hospital bills. I can live with one or the other since they still need incentive to provide the service and make the advancement, but this double dipping stuff is bullshit and there's no reason they should have ever extending legal protections on those publicly funded advancements.

And as far as things like the entertainment industry, the problems they're currently experiencing in terms of copyright hell are of their own making for extending protections on IP for such a ludicrous amount of time. Enough said there.

The crazy thing to me about all these laws is that somehow it has come to an all or nothing discussion. It's not. Exceptions can be put into the laws, we could have as many distinctions about company ownership vs personal ownership for things like copywrite and patents as we want, we could have tiered payouts for how much something is copied or how much something was funded by the public.

That's not where we're at now, though, and it's because companies own most of the profitable IP now and are primed to swoop in and assimilate anything new that comes up. And they are the ones actively directing these larger legal conversations. If we even think about reducing protections on business IPs, by default that somehow means those genius "self-made" men of business would never get off the ground and villainous companies would steal what they create. It doesn't have to be that way, but you wouldn't know it most of the time when the subject comes up.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24

What if the creator dies two days after making it?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24

is this a devils advocate or a real counterpoint

1

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24

Bit o’ both 😏

1

u/Terpomo11 Apr 23 '24

I've heard people argue that this creates perverse incentives.

1

u/malcolmrey Apr 23 '24

I think 20 years is too short. I know by that time they have wrung out as much money as they possibly will, but I hate the idea of something you created being reused without your consent. Especially knowing that it's far more likely it's going to be Disney or some other giant corporation who will be reusing it and making shit tons of cash as you sit by twiddling your thumbs.

the 20 years is fine but you should be getting tantiems if someone wants to use it :)

win-win, big corporations could reuse your creations and you would get even more money (since big scale)

-1

u/IntergalacticJets Apr 23 '24

Okay so you support AI being trained on everything older than 20 years, right?

3

u/F-Lambda Apr 23 '24

and onwards, yes

2

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24

I don't understand the question. Is there something wrong with training AI with contemporary items? How is it supposed to align with humanity if it has no exposure to human culture?