Businesses looking just for the right song or music compilation for an advertising campaign have a whole lot of new options, thanks to a major change in U.S. Copyright protections which took effect this year.
All audio or sound recordings made on or before Dec. 31, 1922 are now in the public domain for use without copyright restrictions, thanks to the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act.
More commonly known as the Music Modernization Act of 2018, it provides for the free use of nearly 400,000 audio / sound recordings more than 100 years old that are not subject to copyright or royalties. Such availability is a much more affordable option for companies big and small hoping to find music or songs to use in ads or to use free of royalties to a music services company.
Many early Jazz Age and Blues classics are now in the public domain, including recordings by Mamie Smith, the Original Dixieland Jass Band, and Paul Whiteman. Other recent additions to the public domain include recordings by Al Jolson, Fanny Brice, and opera great Enrico Caruso.
But the Act is not limited to only music. In fact, all sound recordings -including those featuring only the spoken word- prior to Jan. 1, 1923 became public. That means speeches by President Warren G. Harding during the first half of his presidency are in the public domain, as is the first radio broadcast of a World Series – the 1921 matchup of the New York Yankees and the New York Giants.
Even the first known audio commercial for a soda pop is now in the public domain, as are several vaudeville sound recordings which represent comedic offerings from more than a century ago.
Under theMusic Modernization Act, sound recordings from 1923 through 1956 will become public domain on a phased-in basis over the next few decades.
It is possible, however, that pre-1923 song recordings have been remixed in more recent years, thus triggering new copyright privileges to the newer version of an old song. As a result, the U.S. Copyright Office provides information about the reuse options of public domain sound /audio recordings on their website via: https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/
Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R-Mesa) is advancing a bill to expand anti-discrimination laws to cover gender identity and sexual orientation: HB2802. The bill has yet to be assigned to a committee.
The 23-page bill expands the concept of discrimination in businesses, public accommodations, and workplaces from qualities inherent at birth and protected constitutional rights to lifestyle choices: sexual orientation and gender identity. It also clarifies that health care providers may not provide conversion therapy to minors. Exceptions would be made for buildings designated as houses of worship, denominational headquarters, church offices, or for other religious purposes.
“The regulation of discrimination in places of public accommodation is of statewide concern and is not subject to further regulation by a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state,” asserted the bill.
Technically, the bill already garnered bipartisan support: State Representative Amish Shah (D-Phoenix) cosponsored the bill. Shah himself has other LGBTQ initiatives he’s introduced this session, indicating that he would like to see an end to the traditional understanding of marriage. Shah introduced a voter proposition to repeal the provision within the Arizona Constitution that recognizes marriage as existing between one man and one woman.
Bowers’ hometown implemented a similar policy last year. Prior to issuing a citation, city officials will attempt to mediate the complaint.
This wouldn’t be the first show of Bowers’ bipartisan efforts that, in years past, would’ve toed the line on party values. Bowers introduced a bill that failed last year under the introduction of Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen). Bowers’ version, HB2650, would allow several different law enforcement groups to investigate use of force incidents; Bolding’s version would’ve charged the county attorney or attorney general with investigation. HB2650 would also allocate $24.4 million to create a “Major Incident Division” in the Department of Public Safety (DPS) which would serve as one of the law enforcement groups eligible to investigate use of force incidents, alongside regional law enforcement task forces or outside law enforcement agencies. The state general fund would allocate an additional $600,000 to regional law enforcement task forces.
HB2650 was approved unanimously by both the House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee and House Appropriations Committee.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Prosecutors in Arizona’s border counties have long complained of having no consequential option for charging people who engage in transportation of undocumented non-U.S. citizens (UNCs), but that could substantially change if Senate Bill 1379 is enacted.
It is currently only a Class 1 misdemeanor under Arizona Revised Statute 13-2929 if a person “unlawfully transports, moves, conceals, harbors or shields undocumented immigrants.” A Class 1 misdemeanor conviction provides for a jail (not prison) sentence of no more than six months, and in many courts it can take that long just to get a case to trial.
But SB1379 would reclassify human smuggling transportation activities involving one UNC as a Class 6 felony, making prison time an option. Felony convictions also trigger a loss of many civil rights, including the right to possess or use a firearm.
In addition, the bill would allow state and county prosecutors to charge those involved in the transportation of 2 or more UNCs with a Class 4 felony. This significantly changes the current group prosecution option under ARS 13-2929, which requires at least 10 UNCs to be in a vehicle in order to charge as a Class 6 felony.
SB1379 even redefines who can be charged under state law with engaging in human smuggling transportation. Currently a person must already be in violation of another “criminal offense” in order to be charged under ARS 13-2929. The bill rewords that prerequisite to a violation of a criminal “law or statute.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB1379 on Thursday. It is waiting to clear the Senate Rules Committee next.
Both the House Health and Human Services Committee and the House Appropriations Committee approved a bill to ensure that Arizona’s kinship families, extended families caring for children that would otherwise face placement in the foster care system, have the financial means to take care of their children. Kinship families care for 46 percent of the children in the Department of Child Safety (DCS) system, yet receive $75 a month currently if they remain unlicensed while the average foster family receives over $700 a month irrespective of income. HB2274 would raise that amount to $300, appropriating $24.2 million from the state’s general fund next year. Kinship families wouldn’t be required to submit an application to receive their stipend.
State Representative Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler) introduced HB2274 in response to Governor Doug Ducey’s declaration to increase foster care family resources in his State of the State address last month. Ducey insisted that kinship families should receive the same help as any other family willing to care for a child.
“It can be better for the child, and often, cheaper for the state because historically, they haven’t been treated as foster families. More than 6,000 children in Arizona live in these homes, all the evidence you need that you can’t put a price tag on love,” said Ducey. “So moving forward, these loving extended family members should have the same resources as any other foster family. We’ll make sure of that this year.”
On Ducey’s point of saving the state money: the governor’s office reported during Wednesday’s House Appropriations meeting that the average cost of congregate care was $150 daily, or $5,000 a month.
Ducey applauded the two committees’ bipartisan passage of HB2274 in a press release, noting that kinship families would further receive a helping hand from the Department of Child Safety (DCS). DCS pledged to review its procedures to expedite kinship caregiver licensing. A change from DCS would enable kinship families to receive as much financial support as other foster families.
Only State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) voted against the bill, in the House Appropriations Committee. State Representative Gail Griffin (R-Hereford) passed on her vote.
The stipend would offset the effects families feel from the current inflation plaguing the Biden Administration.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, the House Government and Elections Committee narrowly approved a bill from State Representative Joseph Chaplik (R-Scottsdale) prohibiting government entities or schools from requiring minors to wear a mask without the express parental consent. All Democrats voted against HB2616, ensuring Republicans edged out a narrow 7-6 victory.
“I believe parents should make decisions for their children, not the government,” asserted Chaplik. “The states of Florida and Virginia, with bipartisan support, have passed this similar policy. I will continue to stand for freedom in Arizona for our constituents.”
HB2616 would’ve had greater reach than government and K-12 education: the original bill also prohibited mask mandates in private businesses for both adults and for minors, unless the business had express parental consent for the child to wear one. An approved amendment to HB2616 from State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) struck those additional provisions.
During the committee hearing, Chaplik explained that obtaining consent was up to the schools. When State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) expressed confusion as to whether schools would be required to obtain written consent for a child that showed up to school wearing a mask, Chaplik clarified that the child arriving to school in a mask was sufficient parental consent.
Liguori lambasted her colleagues for “buying into a political narrative.” She claimed that school districts with mask mandates have opt-out options for parents. That is incorrect. Tucson Unified School District (TUSD), for one, doesn’t mention the option to not wear a mask on school property.
“I hate to get caught up in the politics of the masks, which I believe was intentionally designed as an illusion but its even more of a fantasy to think we as legislators know more than the experts who have trained their entire lives in these fields and have studied the science and data on this day in and day out for the past two years,” said Liguori.
State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) challenged Liguori’s assertion that the experts were infallible and that the masks were a political issue. Hoffman reminded the committee of the CDC’s track record of changing their guidelines and goalposts constantly.
“In reality, the science is on the side that kids should not be forced to wear masks,” said Hoffman. “This is not a political argument, it’s an actual medical science argument. There’s countless medical studies to support this, and there are countless health professionals at the highest levels — especially medical doctors, not just public health professionals because there’s a very big difference between an actual medical doctor and a public health professional — they support this.”
On Tuesday, the American Federation for Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten pushed back in an interview with MSNBC against the beginning trend to drop mask mandates in schools. Weingarten admitted that masks are not only intolerable but an impediment to learning.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky has also pushed back, arguing in an interview with Reuters this week that “now is not the moment” to drop mask mandates.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A Senate bill to prohibit health care professionals from providing or referring gender transition procedures to children, the Arizona’s Children Deserve Help Not Harm Act, inspired a wide variety of testimony during Wednesday’s meeting of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, though it ultimately failed to pass. State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) voted with committee Democrats to kill the bill. Pace argued that parents should have the right to make these kinds of medical decisions for their children.
The bill, introduced by State Senator Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert), would’ve included children born with medically verifiable sex development disorders such as ambiguous external biological sex characteristics, abnormal sex chromosome structure, or abnormal sex steroid hormone production or action; children seeking treatment for infection, injury, disease, or disorders caused or exacerbated by a gender transition procedure; and children requiring procedures due to physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place them in imminent danger of death or bodily function impairment unless surgery is performed.
One of the main opponents of the bill that Pace sided with when gave his “no” vote was Gilbert resident Andi Young, who identified herself as the parent of a transgender child and budding licensed mental health professional for children. She neglected to mention that she’s been the co-chair for the Phoenix chapter of the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) for over a year now, the local plant of a national organization pushing LGBTQ ideologies and activism onto children. Young began working with GLSEN Phoenix as their community editor in May 2019 according to her LinkedIn, carrying out responsibilities such as pushing LGBTQ content in schools through educators, and lobbying for LGBTQ legislation at the Arizona State Capitol. Our reporters checked with the secretary of state’s office: although Young claims to be a lobbyist, she wasn’t registered as of press time. Young also didn’t identify herself as a lobbyist or as a member of GLSEN Phoenix on the bill’s page documenting community supporters and opponents.
AZ Free News reported last December that GLSEN Phoenix was advising educators to incorporate “secret libraries” in their classrooms to smuggle in LGBTQ and social justice curriculum. GLSEN is also behind the Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) clubs popping up throughout K-12 schools; some schools call their GSA by other names, like “Student Alliance For Equality,” or “SAFE” clubs.
During her testimony to the senate committee, Young explained that she encouraged her daughter to transition after her daughter began to be withdrawn, depressed, and socially isolated around puberty and that no amount of therapy, support groups, or psychiatric medications helped. Based on the timeline of Young’s GLSEN involvement, it is unclear the extent of influence GLSEN and Young’s work had on her daughter.
Young asserted to the committee that a doctor who specialized in transgender youth told Young that they should give their daughter “gender-affirming medical treatment.” Young testified that her daughter’s mental condition improved over the last five months due to “gender-affirming medications.”
“I am terrified of what will happen to my child if they are denied this care that is so critical to their well-being,” said Young. “My child was assigned female at birth but they identify as trans-masculine but nonbinary. Gender is a spectrum, it’s not a one or the other. They’re on the male-leaning side of the gender spectrum.”
On the other side of the argument against the bill stood a transgender adult, who argued that children lacked the capacity to make these life-altering medical decisions. That transgender woman, Jadis Argiope, expressed gratitude that he was able to transition when he was an adult.
“We’re talking about the disturbing practice of putting kids through cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, irreversible surgeries, all before they can even drink, vote, or get a credit card,” said Argiope. “And now, we know we can’t trust their judgment or self-perception because that used to be us. Yet when it comes to gender identity, we’re told to trust them unwaveringly. I urge you all: let’s be responsible and give these kids the time to grow up the best way they can for themselves and not stand by as psychotic doctors stand by and salivate over these kids and misguided suckers of parents/legal guardians who would sign away their rights.”
Argiope shared that he had removed his own testicles due to his gender dysphoria, a decision that made headlines nearly a decade ago. He argued that his condition has to do with body dysmorphia, and that intervening too early in a child’s life with affirmation and validation of their feelings would only harm them. Argiope said that it was unfashionable to give pushback to these kids, especially in the LGBTQ communities, but that it would be necessary.
“I had the agency as an adult to make this decision. As a child I wouldn’t have,” said Argiope. “Honestly a lot of this is about body dysmorphia. And I realize there’s a disconnect. There’s a huge disconnect between the brain and the body, and there could be many reasons for this. And not all dysphoria is because youre transgender. Like I said most kids who experience dysmorphia, 85 percent of those kids outgrow it and grow to be healthy, happy gay lesbians and adults.”
Statute determines that SB1138 would’ve applied to podiatrists, chiropractors, dentists, medical physicians and surgeons, naturopathic physicians, nurses, dispensing opticians, optometrists, osteopathic physicians and surgeons, pharmacists, physical therapists, psychologists, veterinarians, physician assistants, radiologic technologists, homeopathic physicians, behavioral health professionals, occupational therapists, respiratory therapists, acupuncturists, athletic trainers, massage therapists, nursing care institution administrators, assisted living facilities managers, midwifes, and audiologists and speech pathologists.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
