Compulsory license Puns

I like the idea that you could cover any published song by paying a flat fee? But what was the logic behind the law? I mean, if you think along the line copyright laws apply in other areas, the composer/ writer should have rights to their works and they should be able to decide whether they want to license it, to whom they want to license and how much they want to charge. But under Compulsory Mechanical License law, they don't have a say over any of those. So, what's the rationale they used when they bring in this law? Or is it another hole in law we're using?

Also, if you are using your cover with some sort of video (i.e. YouTube), you can't do it with Compulsory Mechanical License, because it only applies for audio-only productions. I'm bit confused about the intention of this law. Any idea?

I should probably give a little more detail. From what little searching I did, it seems compulsory voting is unconstitutional for the federal government due to infringing on state's rights. It is unclear if individual states could pass their own compulsory voting laws.

On the other hand, tying another civic benefit that is expected but not a right to incentivized voting seems like another matter to me. Would a state or national government be able to incentivize voting?

The assumption would be that the ample existing barriers to voting have been resolved. So, hypothetical national paper ballots sent out to all eligible voters, easy to return, etc. The ability to abstain from voting should be an option, to overcome the argument of non-voters, but a completed ballot must still be returned with the abstain box checked.

It keeps saying it will use my passport photo, but that's relatively old too. I'm wanting to update due to new address, but also with a more recent photo.

The passport photo is probably good for another couple of years until it runs out (i.e. looks enough like me) - but if I use that photo for my driving licences it certainly won't look like me in 10 years time!

The system seems so silly, it means you could have a driving license with a photo that's 20 years old.

It costs more to do it by post, takes longer, and requires a postal order to pay. Eugh.

Yesterday marked the final members day of 2015. Parliament adjourns for the year next week and will resume sitting in early February. However this does not mean MPs are going on a 2 month holiday - select committees and cabinet still meet during January and MPs naturally will still be looking to fulfill their constituency duties.

###The Day that Was

Haere Mai

Parliament welcomed a parliamentary delegation from Cambodia, led by His Excellency Mr Kong Korm, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, Complaint Reception, and Investigation of the Senate.

Bills Introduced

The Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill was introduced. The objective of this bill is to reduce offending against wildlife by improving the powers available to effectively detect and investigate offences and apprehend offenders.

Question Time

12 Questions were answered

The breakdown was:
National: Five questions on better public services, West Coast, education infrastructure, family violence and Queenstown.

Labour: Four questions on economic development, pharmaceuticals, Christchurch and sexual assault crimes

Greens: One question on climate change

NZ First: Two questions on student visas and Environment Minister standing by his statements

The General Debate was Held

Pretty standard speeches - National rural MPs talking about RMA reform mostly, Labour on the economy and Greens on Climate change. Stefan Browning - Green list - had a slightly different topic and focused on antibiotic resistance and herbicide use.

Bills Postponed

Standing Order 74 allows for a member to advise that they wish to postpone debate on their bill.

• For reasons covered in a previous Members Day Update Andrew Little deferred his Healthy Homes Guarantee bill no-2 until next year.

• Phil Twyford (Labour - Te Atatu) deferred his [Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill](http://www.parliament.nz/

I just recently moved to Copenhagen and having looked into this I can't believe they force payment, it seems incredibly extortionate.

I'm seriously tempted to downgrade to my Nokia 3310 just out of spite.

This is kind of bizarre.

I received a document titled, "Notice of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords." The licensee is Spotify, it lists me as the copyright owner, but the "Musical Work" listed is not a song of mine. The record label on the document is incorrect, the recording artist is incorrect, but the writers are listed as myself and my previous bandmates, which would make sense from a copyright perspective. It was sent to the address where I most recently filed a music copyright.

Is this all a big little mistake? Anyone have insight?

17 USCA 115(a)(2) states arrangements are allowed "but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work." I cannot find much case law on how courts interpret the above phrase. Are there any court doctrines out there re this statute?

Does it mean that after a song has been recorded and released that anyone is allowed to use that song on a phonorecord and the song can be redone by bands? I thought you couldn't make and sell a version of a song without the permission of the copyright holder.

I think provisions should be made for cyclists in order for them to ride safely but if they wish to share the roads with motor vehicles they should be subject to compulsory third party insurance and some form of registration complete with a licence and registration plate. Cyclists are supposed to be subject to the same road rules as the rest of road users but many, not all, but still a lot of them don’t abide by them or abide by them arbitrarily. If cyclists are licensed, registered and insured then there would be a stronger case for them to be able to share the roads with other road users. That way if a pedestrian is hit or they cause an accident there is provisions for any out of pocket medical expenses. It will make cyclists more responsible and accountable if they are identifiable by a registration plate and having a licence will at the very least will familiarise them with the road rules. Everyone else who uses the roads has to abide by them so why not cyclists?