Slashdot Mirror
Congress Is Looking To Extend Copyright Protection Term To 144 Years (wired.com)
"Because it apparently isn't bad enough already, Congress is looking to extend the copyright term to 144 years," writes Slashdot reader llamalad. "Please write to your representatives and consider donating to the EFF." American attorney Lawrence Lessig writes via Wired: Almost exactly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. The Act was the 11th extension in the prior 40 years, timed perfectly to assure that certain famous works, including Mickey Mouse, would not pass into the public domain. Immediately after the law came into force, a digital publisher of public domain works, Eric Eldred, filed a lawsuit challenging the act [which the Supreme Court later rejected].
Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create 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. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create 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. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
This is getting ridiculous, especially given that Disney does not produce any new movie featuring Mickey mouse. They should just remove public domain, that way they would not need to add insult to the injury every 20 years.
Well back in 1998 at the last Mickey Mouse protection act, when they were told they couldn't get perpetual copyright due to the constitution saying "limited times" Jack Valenti famously suggested forever less one day.
Just one question: what happens once the works are not protected anymore in other countries? Will Indian and Chinese company produce legal US knock-off for worldwide consumption except in US?
Possibly, but the tactic has always been to extend the rights in one territory then "harmonize" them through trade agreements.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Marvel is a Disney subsidiary, Disney being the primary force behind this copyright shit. Boycott Disney and Marvel. Yeah yeah I know it hurts, Deadpool 2 is out now - but Consider that your great great great grandchildren will still have to pay to see that same damn movie.
S.2393 is not a term extension at all but an expansion of the scope of existing state law copyright in pre-1972 sound recordings, whose expiry had already been set at 2067 by the previous term extension. In particular, "sound recording" under U.S. copyright law does not include the soundtrack of "Steamboat Willie", "Plane Crazy (sound version)", or any other motion picture.
So they created a limited term for copyright term -- to prevent creative people from becoming too wealthy.
There is no innate right to copyright, perpetual or otherwise. For that matter there is also no innate right to own property. In both cases society has decided how we want to handle these things.
For physical things like property, it's pretty straightforward that only one person can control a rock, or a piece of land. We're limited by the laws of physics that prevent me from just making a perfect physical duplicate of your hotel that occupies the exact same physical space and renting rooms.
When it comes to copyright, there is no "thing" that is owned. Nothing prevents me from making a verbatim copy of a book, or a picture, or duplicating a collection of digital bits. It is solely a social construct that says "Billy is granted special exclusive rights for a limited time". It's not because Billy is special, or gifted, or even expected to do anything with it. In the US it is specifically "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries." A tit-for-tat.
But frankly, for the last 50 years it's been all tit and no tat. And not the good kind of tit.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
14+14, and it was actually the English who introduced those terms, to further education. Your Founding Fathers agreed and just changed advancing learning to advancing the sciences and arts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism