US Senator Introduces Bill To Strip Disney of Special Copyright Protections (yahoo.com) 406
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is introducing legislation that would strip the Walt Disney Company of special copyright protections granted to the corporation by Congress, while also limiting the length of new copyrights. From a report: The "Copyright Clause Restoration Act of 2022" would cap the length of copyrights given corporations by Congress to 56 years and retroactively implement this change on companies, including Walt Disney. "The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over. Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists. It's time to take away Disney's special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation," Hawley told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. According to Hawley's office, Congress has used an old law, also known as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," in order to extend copyrights to corporations for up to 120 years. Instead of issuing copyright protections to create enough monopoly protection in order to foster innovation, companies are getting handouts from Congress for a much longer period than needed.
All for this (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly no way this passes, but it's great to see someone try to reel back in copyright which is absurdly long now and does harm to society.
Re:All for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly no way this passes, but it's great to see someone try to reel back in copyright which is absurdly long now and does harm to society.
While I absolutely abhor the Disney copyright carve out, I'm suspicious that this move is more in line with the DeSantis attacks on Disney over the Don't Say Gay bill, and is being used as a cudgel to censor free speech. (That's a nice copyright carve out you have there. It'd be a pity if something happened to it)
Re:All for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what the reason is? This is something slashdot as a whole usually supports.
Re: (Score:2)
The ends justify the means.
Interesting.
Re: All for this (Score:4, Interesting)
If the means cause no harm, then why not?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If the means cause no harm, then why not?
Sure if by no harm you mean normalizing lying, then go right at it.
Re: All for this (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not try to hire the right person for the job. Incentivize the wrong person to do the right thing. - Milton Friedman.
Re: All for this (Score:5, Informative)
Motives do not matter. If a democrat introduced this bill, you would be all for it.
First of all, don't try to put words in my mouth.
Secondly there is currently a concerted Republican anti-Disney movement that is purely politically motivated. So yes, the motives do matter.
Re: All for this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking about copyright.
Re: All for this (Score:3)
Re: All for this (Score:3)
Re: All for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait. Politicians lying is not normal already?
Re: (Score:3)
I would posit that Hawley is lying about his motivation.
Re: No lying about lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not an anti-groomer bill. And because Hawley is just pandering to certain voters and not at all worried about copyright issues.
This falls somewhat close to a "bill of attainder", which is forbidden in the constitution. Such bills seek to punish an entity without due process in the courts. While this isn't exactly the same thing, it's really swimming in the same waters, especially if you consider Josh Hawley's rationales which are distinct from the language of the legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
Hawley and other Republicans are attempting to silence criticism of their laws/votes by retaliating against the corporations that listen to their customers & employees. He could care less about copyright and the harm it may do, he just wants to ensure his platform stays in power.
Re: No lying about lying (Score:5, Informative)
The bill in question requires sex Ed to be developmentally appropriate. How is teaching sexual topics in a developmentally appropriate to children a bad thing?
Re: No lying about lying (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't.
I agree the "don't say gay" bill was misrepresented in the media but it was a law that was not needed. It's just another GOP boogeyman to rile up their voter base. Just like calling Biden a radical socialist.
The GOP is too busy changing the rules and removing freedoms to actually put forth some good ideas to improve the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Who gets to define "developmentally appropriate"? What kinds of legal harassment can the subjected to? I've got this strong suspicion that it will be legally dangerous to offer effective sex education.
FWIW, I consider it "developmentally appropriate" for children of any age to watch animals breeding, complete with explanations of what's happening. Including answering any questions they ask in as much detail as they're willing to accept.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the phrasing in the bill specifically says no discussion of gender identity or orientation "in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
This gives parents an "in" to dispute any sort of sexual education they feel doesn't meet their beliefs, and leaves schools open for any number of legal challenges about instruction for older students.
So if... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a Democrat were to be proposing this it would be okay but because a Republican is we must be against it? As some one who typically votes Democrat in national elections this seems like backwards ass reasoning to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, posted this under the wrong post.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd agree if the bill only removed Disney's copywrite protections.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the motives of the Republican senator in the story are corrupt. He uses copyright length as a cudgel, a means to get Disney to kowtow to the Republican agenda. He doesn't care about the good of society, but only about the party's interests (as is particularly typical for Republicans), so he can't be trusted to support the law once he gets his goal. What do you think will happen if/when Disney folds? The same Republicans will surely pay them back by extending copyright length to whatever the company
Re: All for this (Score:5, Insightful)
You should consider values and how free
Corporate speech aligns with your values. Go read the so called dont say gay bill. Consider what it requires. Then ask yourself why it is bad based solely on its text. After considering that ask if special corporate carve outs are a right or a privilege and if they are a privilege what basis do we give out privilege. Finally ask if Disney behavior aligns with your values. See its behavior in China. Now conclude - does Disney deserve privileges? PS - as a gay man I support the dont say gay bill. Can you guess why?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're sexualizing 3rd graders?
Re: (Score:3)
You're sexualizing 3rd graders?
You think teaching people is sexualisation? WTF is wrong with you. You're definitely one of the people who should not be thinking of the children.
Re: (Score:3)
"Anti-grooming"?!?
The phrasing in the bill specifically says no discussion of gender identity or orientation "in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
This gives parents an "in" to dispute any sort of sexual education they feel doesn't meet their beliefs ("Pray away the gay"...), and leaves schools open for any number of legal challenges about instruction for older students.
Given the numbe
Re:All for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: All for this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I don't get the pushback here. If the bill was written to only remove Disney copywrite protections, I'd get the outrage.
This would be like calling the Schumer abortion bill in the Senate as an attack on the Supreme Court.
Tons of bills are written as reaction to current events. It doesn't make the bill bad.
Re:All for this (Score:4)
I'm conflicted. Removing special copyright privileges for Disney is a good thing; however this is being done by all the wrong reasons. I am a strong believer that the ends do not justify the means.
And of course it won't pass. Josh Hawley is only doing this to appeal to a certain base that is triggered by the word "Woke".
Re: (Score:3)
I am a strong believer that the ends do not justify the means.
Even if you really like the ends of shortening copyright (oh hell I do. Part of me desperately wants this to pass), those aren't the only ends. The ends are that businesses should fear the Republican party: if you criticise any policy or law, they will hurt you.
The ends are half good half absolutely fucking awful. Sensible people are prepared to give up a lot of good to stave off awful.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean to say that the means justify the ends. The goal is to punish Disney, which some find undesirable, but the proposed method is to reduce the length of copyright, which most would agree is probably a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
It's kinda the opposite, it's the means that are good, not exactly the ends.
Re: (Score:3)
Fixing Copyright? Absolutely. Doing it via whats effectively a corporate bill of atainder, because some politicians dont like the ideology of the mouse? No, thats terrible.
When politicians are trying to monster companies over a stupid ideology war because some company doesnt sufficiently hate the gays, or whatever, you have a solid threat to civil liberties.
Worse, in whatever court the mouse appeals this in, they are just g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is 100% what this is. Stupid republican base signaling, retaliating because Disney realized the bigotry of the Florida republicans was going to be bad for business.
That said, should I really object when someone does what I think is the right thing for a terrible reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All for this (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, should I really object when someone does what I think is the right thing for a terrible reason?
Yes you should object. Because if you don't then you are supporting "The end justifies the means". See this for an explanations to why that is not a good thing.
https://www.ethicssage.com/201... [ethicssage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. Would you really leave a bad law in place just because you dislike the people pushing to correct it? This is why we can't have nice things and why congress gets so little done.
It is not that I dislike the people trying to correct it, its is that I dislike their motivations for doing so. They are not doing this to make my life better, they are doing this purely for self serving reasons.
If the law is bad then there is scope for having open discussion about it. And a lot of people have complained about Disney in the past. But strange that action is being taken now with all that is happening in Florida.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the means is justified, but the end is not. Or at least with a generous assumption on a bill where I haven't read the text yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
.... I'm suspicious that this move is more in line with the DeSantis attacks on Disney over the Don't Say Gay bill...
Really? With "Woke" being used twice, and in a derogatory fashion, what gave you that idea??? /s
Playing with Putin's cards (Score:5, Interesting)
Insofar as this is targeting a corporation for political ends, it's clearly evil. Playing a card straight out of Putin's deck. Don't confuse yourself that it actually has anything to do with copyright law. Yeah, it's broken, but it's just an excuse.
Quite likely that the American experiment of mixing democracy with a republican form of government has already ended. If TFG wasn't so completely incompetent it might be obvious by now. But the new generation of wannabe dictators are not completely oblivious morons. If democracy isn't dead, they are almost certain to kill it this year, but with the coup de grâce delayed to 2024.
So did you hear the joke about the banker who disagreed with Putin? Suddenly got the urge to completely divest himself of his bank for an estimated 3% of the value. I guess that's compensation for the new owners, since they have to change the name of the bank. Oligarchs like to name things after themselves.
You don't get the joke? But you better laugh anyway. Putin said to laugh at the joke, so you really must laugh.
But he's still a very lucky ex-oligarch. Or did you miss the stories about the sudden epidemic of murder-suicides among Russian oligarchs who suggested the war in Ukraine wasn't a fabulous idea? First they shoot their families, and then they kill themselves. Such remarkable coincidences. (Actually, I've only heard of two of those cases recently, but I'm not paying close attention. How many does Putin need to keep the other oligarchs in line? The boundary is not the peculiarity of the events, but rather how many cases before it stops being suspicious coincidences and becomes too bloody obvious.)
Re:Playing with Putin's cards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I hate this "democracy is dying" line.
Me too. However, you can't assume that democracy will continue to function without active support, or that the system that was created centuries ago meets today's requirements. There are many threats to democracy. Various forms of autocracy and political corruption suit those who wish to acquire or hold on to power. Democracy is something of an inconvenience for such people, and they will seek to subvert it or find ways around it.
Threats to democracy have been going on for centuries, and it takes active eff
Re: (Score:2)
What Disney copyright carve-out? All companies have the same copyright protections, it's just that Disney benefits from the very long copyright terms more than other companies.
Re:All for this (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no "Don't Say Gay" bill.
Nah, of course not
Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay' [npr.org]
This is probably Hawley sucking DeSantis's cock (Score:2)
in an attempt to be a running mate when he invariably runs for dicta- err President-for-now in 2024. It was going to be Trump/DeSantis but that appears to be over.
He's not trying to reel anything in (Score:2)
If any of them ever get to uppity the Republican party has a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:All for this (Score:4, Insightful)
And retroactively extending it wasn't a problem?
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, woke is irrelevant here, copyright is just far too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Maybe even if this doesnt happen now, if the GOP takes over the legislative houses, in the mid terms, it may get them to actually do this.
At which point it all depends on what Biden does.
Am suddenly interesting in the GOP's plans for the future.
PS : Am not an American, never visited USA, but if USA actually limits copyright, it may influence other countries to do so as well. Which I will consider a global win for everyone. I also think the GOP is nuts in general, since before the time of Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet Biden signs this if it hits his desk so long as it's applied fairly to everyone and doesn't carve out exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on its usefulness, though its almost like Hawley is shooting himself in his own foot with the reasoning-- punitive measures against a corporation for speaking? Sounds suspiciously like a breach of the 1st Amendment. If he stopped at "the age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over" he'd have a much better chance...
unless he's intentionally wanting this to fail and just wasting more time in Congress pandering to a portion of his base.
Re:The right move for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Hawley supported a literal coup. You think he cares about the Constitution?
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, this jag off needs to be removed from gene pool, and their whole point is to st
needs to have renewal fees to stop Abandonware and (Score:2)
needs to have renewal fees to stop Abandonware and the Disney Vault.
Ok disney can keep there vault as long as they pay the renewal fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Hawley *is* trying to abuse his political position to punish speech he doesn't like, but it's not really like Mickey Mouse and all that 1930s-1960s stuff is all that valuable as content. Remember Disney owns *Star Wars*, *Marvel Studios* and *Pixar*. Even if this passes, they will still own *trademarks* on the most important aspect of that old stuff, so other companies won't be able to use images of Mickey Mouse and other characters to sell their products, which is the most useful aspect of that IP to Disn
Re:The right move for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
A shark devouring your enemy is not your friend.
Re: (Score:3)
A shark devouring your enemy is not your friend.
No one said you need to make friends with the shark. But you can look on and smile.
Re:The right move for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Informative)
So I actually found a copy of the bill itself (Copyright Clause Restoration Act of 2022, S.4171). While it doesn't "name names" like the article and all of Hawley's rhetoric, its still quite specific in who it targets.
Specifically, it only applies to copyright holders with a market capitalization above $150B and for which an NAICS code of 5121 or 71 could be assigned.
In other words, it only affects the largest media megacorps and nobody else.
In other words, it'll hurt the people he wants to hurt, a few others as collateral damage, but not really fix the problem for greater society.
Berne Convention (Score:5, Informative)
The USA eventually signed up to the Berne Convention in 1989, which limits how far back the USA can roll copyright protection. That said 56 years is more than the 50 years minimum of the Berne convention.
Let the hilarity ensue (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the Supreme Court said companies are people and could give essentially unlimited money to campaigns? You know, free speech and all that.
Now that one particular company is exercising that right to free speech, suddenly Republicans want to kill the messenger.
Which is strange, because this sounds an awful lot like what Republicans claim Twitter does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when the Supreme Court said companies are people and could give essentially unlimited money to campaigns? You know, free speech and all that.
Now that one particular company is exercising that right to free speech, suddenly Republicans want to kill the messenger.
Which is strange, because this sounds an awful lot like what Republicans claim Twitter does.
Nothing is stopping them from exercising their free speech or giving money to campaigns.
And nothing is stopping the government from taking away some questionable special considerations they were given.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember how liberals used to be suspicious of megacorps and against vast sums of money in politics? How they used to rely on judges ruling from the bench to pass things, like, oh gay marriage when the vast majority of the population was against it?
Isn't it funny how hypocritical people can be when they rationalize it in their political glands?
Re: (Score:3)
How they used to rely on judges ruling from the bench to pass things, like, oh gay marriage when the vast majority of the population was against it?
I love when loonies just invent facts.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/3... [gallup.com]
By the time the supreme court ruled that states can't simply choose to take away this particular freedom in 2015, already 60% of the population supported the decision.
The religious right were trying withhold freedoms from one segment of the population (unconstitutional for a variety of reaso
Wat? (Score:2)
What has woke culture to do with this?
Copyright protections need to end at 70 (Score:2)
And there should be no exceptions. Bury those who have money and use it for evil in the dust.
Bill Text (Score:3)
It's pretty short which I will give him credit on since I am always hearing about how bills should be short. (I tried to clean it up somewhat)
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/... [senate.gov]
A BILL
To address the duration of copyright, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Copyright Clause Restoration Act of 2022’’.
6 SEC. 2. DURATION OF COPYRIGHT.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—
8 (1) ORIGINAL TERM.—Notwithstanding any provision of title 17, United States Code, or any other provision of law, copyright in any work shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.
EHF22258 9SJ S.L.C.
1 (2) EXTENSION.—The holder of a copyright under paragraph (1) shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in the applicable work for a further term of 28 years if the holder applies for that renewal and extension during the 1-year period before the expiration of the original term of the copyright under that paragraph.
8 (b) APPLICATION.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para10 graph (2), subsection (a) shall apply with respect to copyright protection for any work fixed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
13 (2) RETROACTIVE EFFECT.—
14 (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara15 graph (B), subsection (a) shall apply with re16 spect to a copyright that, on any date on or 17 after May 1, 2022, is owned by a person that has a market capitalization of 19 more than $150,000,000,000; and is classified under North Amer21 ican Industry Classification System code 5121 or 71; or engages in substantial activities for which a code described in subclause (I) could be assigned.
EHF22258 9SJ S.L.C.
1 (B) LICENSING.—If, as of May 1, 2022, a person is operating under a license with respect to a copyright that is subject to subparagraph and that, because of the application of that subparagraph, would expire during the 10-year period beginning on May 1, 2022, that person shall continue to hold the rights contained in that license (to the exclusion of any person not granted those rights by a license before May 1, 2022) for a period that is the shorter of— (i) 50 percent of the remaining license term, as of May 1, 2022; or (ii) 10 years, beginning on May 1,14 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, doesn't this go against the Bern Convention on copyright (to which the US is a signatory)
Bern Convention [wikipedia.org]
that allows copyright durations of:
The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms,[11] as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it has not been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms.
While I like the idea (Score:5, Insightful)
He's just posturing (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney knows this is just a Republican Party appealing to their extreme base because their primary elections are going on right now. It's all just a fake song and dance.
Of course it is a little risky, America is flirting with the kind of kleptocracy Russia has, and Putin will occasionally poison one of the real oligarchs. But that's just similar to how the court of a monarch back in the day had its share of intrigue.
Putting all that aside if you don't want to live in a kleptocratic oligarchy now would be a good time to put a stop to all of this. The next time we put in authoritarian the White House is likely to be the last election any of us ever sees. At least the last real election. After that it's going to be the same kind of election Putin does. Where the Man in charge wins by 80% and if those the slightest chance for the dropping below 70% his opponent drinks polonium tea
the perfect GOP move (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
if you do anything outside of cult mantra
You're going to have to gaslight us better than this.
The proposed bill preserves the "right" to copyright, it just reduces the duration so it's not so obviously biased to corporations. No person needs a copyright 50 years after they've died, never mind 80. The current law benefits corporations only. This bill is what we want. If it takes Disney going full woke to get Republicans to finally care about corporate copyright abuse, why would you care?
Democrats have not compromised on a single issue during the en
Meh ... (Score:2)
"The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over. Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists. It's time to take away Disney's special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation,"
This won't go anywhere. Republicans may have a super powered sense of Judeo-Christian morality but that is easily overridden by copious amounts of legal cash bribes thanks to Citizens United v. FEC. Furthermore, if this is intended to apply only to 'woke' corporations but not the 'christian conservative' ones it would violate the equal opportunity clause of the 14th amendment: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". because: "Corporations are pe
The reform copyright actually needs (Score:2)
Usage tracking with compensation based on benefits received. If it gives you pleasure, then you should pay for that. But it should also includes a fraction of the profits from derivative works going to the original creator.
There do need to be some time limits, but that's actually to prevent it from becoming a pyramid scheme. And that's obviously where the corporate lobbyists would focus their efforts, but I think there should be a carve-out so corporations need not apply. Their IP problem is Insufficient Pr
The Ghost of Sonny Bono called (Score:3)
He says get this giant rat off my back!
Copyright needs to end when the original author of the material leaves this mortal coil or with a fixed timeframe if he transfers it to some other entity, not to exceed 20 years. Make it just like a patent.
So this bill is garbage (Score:5, Informative)
I see a lot of the same people (many of whom are probably sock puppets) saying things like 'well, at least it's copyright reform, and that's good.'
No.
Assuming that there are still a few real people left on Slashdot, don't be fooled by these other assholes who don't give a shit about copyright, they just want to fellate Republicans and punish anyone who isn't them for the crime of existing.
As a bit of introduction, I've been posting on Slashdot since 1997, and the only reason my user ID is as high as it is is because I didn't bother to make an account until it was mandatory. (It used to be you just typed in whatever name you felt like for each post) I've been interested in copyright since the late 1990s when the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA came along. I became a lawyer because of my passion for copyright law, and probably the vast majority of my posts here are about that subject, including the need for reform.
This stupid, stupid law is not meaningful copyright reform; there is nothing good about it. You can find it here [senate.gov] if you want to follow along.
First, it proposes to reduce the terms granted to new works from the current lengths of either the author's life+70, or 95 or 120 years from creation (which length you get depends on certain details about the work) to 28 years with an option in the last year to renew for another 28 years. This is the same term length as under the 1909 Copyright Act, which was in place until the end of 1977. However, because it only applies to new works, no one would see any benefit from it until the late 2070s. Nothing prevents the terms from being retroactively lengthened again in the future -- and nothing short of a constitutional amendment could ever ensure that -- so the smart money is on absolutely nothing actually having such a short term length. So it's a useless reform in that respect.
It's also useless because it's poorly thought out. Why 28+28? US copyright terms were originally 14+14, then 28+14, then 28+28, and then the longer and more complicated regime we have now. The reason for 28 is obviously because it's twice 14, but why did it start with 14 year terms back in 1790? The answer is because it cribbed off of patent terms (which had been 14 years also, but without renewal), and those were that length because the traditional length of an apprenticeship was 7 years, and 14 was twice that. The idea had been the master could teach a couple generations of apprentices his new invention, but also not fear that they'd run off with it. This is ultimately a stupid basis going forward.
The ideal copyright term length was studied some years ago -- and could probably use more study -- and was estimated at 15 years. Even that is not a great approach though, as it's still one size fits all. If the bill were smart -- it is not -- it would vary the term length based on the type of work. For example, newspapers don't need long copyright terms; no one is incentivized to publish one based on how much money will roll in days after a particular issue is published, much less years. Books only make money for around 18 months after first publication in a given medium (this is why there are hardbacks and paperbacks; to stretch out the time and to charge early adopters more). Software ages fairly quickly. Movies typically last the longest, and probably TV nowadays too, although release windows have been getting awfully compressed lately. The best way to handle this is to have numerous 1-year terms, with the number of renewals varying on the type of work.
Why doesn't Hawley suggest this? Because he's a shithead who doesn't care about this at all.
Frankly, term length is not even the most important issue in copyright reform. If he were honestly (something he's never been) trying to do something good (something he's never tried to do) he would instead prioritize copyright forma
Re: (Score:3)
I read your lengthy post in hope that you read the whole bill (which isn't that hard since it's very short), but it appears that you only read Paragraph (2)(a) and didn't bother to read Paragraph(2)(b)(2). Here, let me help
Re:So this bill is garbage (Score:5, Informative)
I read your lengthy post in hope that you read the whole bill (which isn't that hard since it's very short), but it appears that you only read Paragraph (2)(a) and didn't bother to read Paragraph(2)(b)(2). Here, let me help you...
Oh, I read it. It's just garbage, as I said.
Section 2(b)(1) changes the term for new works (i.e. works which would be fixed after the bill becomes effective, not that it will).
Section 2(b)(2) also changes the term for pre-existing works, retroactively.
I addressed this as well; it probably will stick the taxpayer with a bill of billions of dollars based on the current stance of federal eminent domain law.
This is clearly aimed directly at Disney.
And I addressed that; the Constitution prohibits bills of attainder. A prospective change that applies to everyone? That would certainly be upheld, though it's stupidly done. A retroactive change that affects a handful of businesses? (And it doesn't just hit Disney) That's asking for it to be struck down because the law is not intended to be used as a means of petty revenge, which is clearly what this is, to the extent that it isn't just pointless grandstanding.
It effectively would undo the effects of the Sonny Bono Act of 1998.
Idiot. First, it doesn't undo it at all with regard to the vast majority of works because it is mostly only prospective in effect. (CTEA was a terrible law, but at least it treated everyone equally, even if the benefits were of little value to most) Second, it goes way beyond that. CTEA only added 20 years. This undoes the term provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act, and takes us all the way back to the 1909 Copyright Act term lengths. (And in case you think the 1909 Act was some sort of highwater, it wasn't. It was written by the usual sorts of copyright industry players of its day, just as later copyright laws were; you have to go well back into the 19th century to find copyright laws that at least considered the public benefit) Third, as I discussed at some length, that's not a good term length either; it's still too long.
Paragraph (2)(b)(2)(B) then goes into exceptions regarding licensees where the copyright thereof will expire as a result of (2)(b)(2)(A).
Yeah, that's a sideshow; it's not particularly important.
Ultimately, I think you just didn't want to like this because it was proposed by a Republican in response to the "don't say gay" fiasco.
No. I would criticize this just as much had it been proposed by a Democrat, although I'm confident it never would have been. Republicans no longer try to govern; the devil's bargain of Nixon's Southern Strategy has resulted -- actually as far back as the 80s -- in the party just sort of flopping around mindlessly and destructively. The Democrats at least try.
This is ill-thought out, incompetently done, and besmirches a good idea -- copyright reform -- with Hawley's stupid name. The little fucker is ruining copyright reform by trying to appropriate it, but all it means is that he'll fail, not that he would accomplish anything useful if he succeeded, and it'll discourage anyone who actually wants to do something good for the American people from going anywhere near this issue.
Re:So this bill is garbage (Score:5, Informative)
(i) has a market capitalization of more than $150,000,000,000; and (ii)(I) is classified under North American Industry Classification System code 5121 or 71;
There are two companies in the US with market cap > $150B and could fall under NAICS 5121 "Motion Picture and Video Industries", that is Disney (market cap $189.9B) and Comcast (market cap $185.4B) which owns Universal Pictures & Dreamworks.
This would be a major change. 2022-56=1966. So any Disney, 20th Century Fox, or Universal movie from before then would lose copyright protection.
That includes:
Disney: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), Cinderella (1950), Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955), Sleeping Beauty (1959)
20th Century Fox: The Grapes of Wrath (1940), Miracle on 34rth Street (1947), Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953), Carousel (1956), The King and I (1956), The Longest Day (1962), Cleopatra (1963), The Sound of Music (1965)
Universal: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Frankenstein (1931), Dracula (1931), The Invisible Man (1933), Buck Privates (1941), Harvey (1950), Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), To Kill A Mockingbird (1962), Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963)
Re:So this bill is garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's a fair generalization. The prevailing sentiment (which is shared by me) seems to be, this is a case of someone doing something at least marginally useful for the wrong reasons, or at least for questionable reasons. Moreover, I think even those who agree with the congressman's reasons do actually care about copyright to some degree, so for them it's more of a case of doing a good thing for reasons they feel are just. I don't think it's fair or useful to preface your post with what boils down to "everyone with an opposing opinion here is participating in bad faith." I don't think that's true, and I think even if you think it's true, it's not a useful way to lead an argument.
I suspect this is an overexaggeration, but let's go over a few of your points.
While true, small steps in the right direction are still small steps in the right direction. There's plenty of reason to be cynical these days, but I think you're being a bit overly cynical and defeatist here; things that have the potential to benefit our children are still worth doing, and while the potential for it to be rolled back is a problem, I think it's one worth fighting for.
Even if everything you said is true here, I'd still prefer smaller copyright term to longer copyright term. And I don't think the passage of a bill like this would preclude further debate and action on the subject; if anything, it could springboard it.
Potentially true, but either way it is an issue, and a fairly substantial one. Shortening it is a good thing, even if done for the wrong reasons, even if that shortening isn't perfect. I don't agree with the idea that any action that isn't done for entirely the right reasons and that gets us 100% of the way to the goal is, to use your word, "useless."
The rest of your post seems to mostly be more elaboration on why things other than copyright term are more important, which even if I agree with completely doesn't change my position here. Ultimately, even if his reasons suck, even if it's ill-conceived, and even if there are other copyright-related things that are more important, I still think chipping away at copyright terms is a net positive, and I don't see the downside to actually doing it.
Again, I don't think it's fair to claim this. I think there's merit to some of the things you've said -- other things are more important, it doesn't go far enough, it's ill-conceived, the guy behind it is full of shit, etc. That doesn't change the reality that shortening the term, even down the road, even with the potential to be rolled back, is better than not doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
"The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over."
Has he looked into the current and past history of the GOP?
The Democrats haven't exactly made it a point to reel in multi-generational copyright terms, either.
Whether it's because Howley is looking for a cause that can get bipartisan support shortly before his re-election campaign, or because he is looking to make the first nudge of the needle toward decreasing handouts from the Red Team, or because he's trying to use Disney as a political pawn...I'm not terribly picky about who makes the first move on bringing copyright reform into the spotlight.
Regardless of the
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if he was in a position to carry out this proposal, that would mean Republicans were in control of the various branches.
They would have just taken over at that point, abolish any opposition, and any company that disagreed with The Party would be shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Right thing to do, for the wrong reasons. If all it takes is republican hatred for democracy to make them change and disable the very protection racket that they created, so much the better.
Copyright Act of 1976. Introduced by a Democrat, signed by a Republican president.
Copyright Term Act (Mickey Mouse Act). Introduced by a Republican, signed by a Democratic president.
etc
Your ignorant and myopic understanding, quite frankly, plays exactly into what the parties want. They want your support (and your unthinking antagonism towards the other team) so that cronyism can continue abated.
Re:If only this was 1998.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading the comments it seems most people are in favor of it, just against a Senator introducing legislation to punish free speech.
Slashdot has always been in favor of free speech AND against copyright (which stifles free speech) so this seems pretty consistent going back to 1998
Re: (Score:3)
In this case it is, but it's a short jump from punishing a corporation for speech you don't like to punishing an individual (or say an organization) for speech you don't like.