Read and share online: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/take-action-tell-us-congress-not-to-pass-the-classics-act

Hello Ruben Safir,

The 1990s have come back to haunt us as the United States Congress attempts to
extend the scope of copyright law again, just two decades after the
last extension (which added twenty years to the terms of existing
copyrights at the time), and this time their sights are set on the
Internet.

Read on to learn more, including how to take action before Congress
takes its next step with the bill, on Thursday, June 28.

Creative Commons founder and former Free Software Foundation (FSF)
board member Lawrence Lessig recently explained the ugly
consequences of the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs,
Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act, which
was passed by the US House of Representatives earlier this year and is now before the
Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the omnibus Music Modernization
Act. Lessig has a long history in the realm of copyright law -- he was
the lead counsel on an unsuccessful challenge to the previous
extension of US copyright law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act.

The CLASSICS Act aims to fence in another arena in which users enjoy
published works, Lessig writes, creating "a new digital performance
right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any
digital platform (ever hear of the Internet?) -- for musical recordings
made before 1972" (hence the "cute" acronym, CLASSICS). The bill would
grant such recordings a new "protection" through 2067, which actually
means being copyright restricted for up to 144 years, compared to 95
years for print works from the same period.

Once again, this expansion of the scope of US copyright law flies in
the face of the intention of the US Constitution, because its
beneficiaries are not the public, nor artists, but corporate
interests. Under the US Constitution, "copyright exists to benefit
users... not for the sake of publishers or authors," and the
Supreme Court has affirmed that intention -- the readers, music
listeners, and audiences that experience copyrighted material are
supposed to come first. In reality, US copyright law has acted as if
the benefits to the public and to publishers are of equal importance,
and as if its goal is to maximize the number of published works,
thereby necessitating granting publishers maximum power. As a result,
copyright law continues to grant publishers broader powers for
increasing periods of time. (See "Misinterpreting Copyright" for
an extensive examination of this problem.)

The consequences for music fans could be devastating, at a time when
people increasingly use the Internet to listen to music, via digital
music services and Web radio stations, according to reports from
Nielsen and The Guardian. This bill will decrease access
to recordings of music made between 1923 and 1972, because those who
make such recordings available on the Internet will face serious legal
consequences if they do so without a license.

The bill will inevitably further consolidate access to music
recordings online, because those who cannot afford to pay licensing
fees will risk fines if they defy the law. Big companies that already
use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to stream music on the
Web, from Sirius XM to Spotify, will have the advantage. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation
reports, some already pay royalties for some of these recordings
via private agreements with record labels -- smaller Web streamers are
likely to be unable to manage the additional expense, or they could be
shut out by exclusive licenses granted to bigger services.

Of greatest concern to the FSF is the effect this bill could have on
free software for digital music, and the way it could allow DRM to
grow on the Internet. Publishers often add DRM to their works under
the guise of protection against copyright infringement, but in
reality, DRM is a publisher's means of controlling every aspect of a
piece of digital media -- and taking away user freedom. DRM is
incompatible with free software, and its proliferation actively
undermines widespread use of free software for digital media.

The CLASSICS Act was combined into an omnibus bill with the Musical
Works Modernization Act and the Allocation for Music Producers
Act, and the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the proposal on
May 15, 2018 -- transcripts can be reviewed here (there is also
video, but it requires nonfree JavaScript to view). The conversation
largely omits a broader concern that ties together the effect of
copyright overreach on arts and culture with its effect on free
software: increased copyright restriction encourages lawsuits against
people who share music. People become afraid to share digital
media, believing sharing is theft.

Take action!

By Wednesday, June 27th, call a member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee (especially if you live in their home state) and urge them
to strike the CLASSICS copyright expansion from the Music
Modernization Act.

Committee members include Republicans Chuck Grassley* (Chair, IA),
Orrin Hatch* (UT), John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), Jeff Flake (AZ),
Thom Tillis* (NC), Lindsey Graham (SC), Michael Lee (UT), Ben Sasse
(NE), Mike Crapo* (ID), John Kennedy* (LA); and Democrats Dianne
Feinstein* (Ranking Member, CA), Patrick Leahy* (VT), Sheldon
Whitehouse* (RI), Christopher Coons* (DE), Mazie Hirono* (HI),
Kamala Harris* (CA), Dick Durbin* (IL), Amy Klobuchar* (MN),
Richard Blumenthal* (CT), and Cory Booker* (NJ). Those members with
asterisks following their names were cosponsors of the CLASSICS Act
before it was merged with the Music Modernization Act or are
cosponsors of the Music Modernization Act -- yes, nearly all members
of the Judiciary Committee cosponsored at least one of the bills.

Not sure what to say? Try using the following script:

Hello,

I live in CITY/STATE. I am calling to urge you to stop the overzealous
expansion of copyright in the Music Modernization Act. The text in the
CLASSICS Act portion of the bill would expand copyright for recordings
made before 1972, creating a barrier for music listeners by expanding
the use of Digital Restrictions Management, which is incompatible with
the free software I use to listen to digital music. This is not what
the US Constitution intended copyright to be.

I hope SENATOR will do the right thing and strike the CLASSICS Act
portion of the Music Modernization Act.

Thank you for your time.

But how do I call the Senators?

• Find their numbers here.




• Dial the Senate at (202) 224-3121 and they will connect you.

Happy hacking,

Georgia Young

Program Manager