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.

Comments

Public Domain

[darkain]

In other words, "Public Domain" doesn't exist anymore.

Re:Public Domain

[olsmeister]

Sure it does. It just means that everything thing that is currently in the public domain is all that will ever be in the public domain.

Re:Public Domain

[cascadingstylesheet]

Sure it does. It just means that everything thing that is currently in the public domain is all that will ever be in the public domain.

Might have a perversely positive effect. I already am reading lots of great old stuff since I won't pay for modern dreck.

Re:Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it does. It just means that everything thing that is currently in the public domain is all that will ever be in the public domain.

Agreed. Anyone who votes for this ever in his lifetime is not qualified to be a servant of the people. No further test is required.

Put simply if a child can be born, live a long life, and die before something goes in public domain then you have effectively eliminated public domain. Combine that with DRM and such which makes even backing up video challenging, and most things will simply cease to exist, if some major company isn't maintaining the originals.

Of course for content companies they _want_ old work to cease to exist, since it makes it easier to charge for something similar to be made again.

If the want copyrights forever then they need at least to pay a princely sum for them. First ten years could be standard. Then every year for the next 10 a million bucks. After that double it to 20 million, then 40 million, then 80 million at 10 year intervals, paying every year. Eventually they won't be able to afford the payment and it goes public domain. That would stop some of this crap, and provide for some nice tax revenue.

Also, make sure they deposit unencumbered versions in original quality with the library of congress or similar.

Re:Public Domain

[rpresser]

Because YOU HAVE TO WORK TO KEEP A HOTEL IN OPERATION.

Or a golf course.

Or even a slum rental property.

But Mickey Mouse? The only work being done on that is paying lawyers to get copyright extended again.

Re:Public Domain

[Crashmarik]

Oh that's right, the ruling class (govt + business) can't stand the idea of working class (authors/musicians) making money forever off their work. They should always have their noses to the grindstone.

I was unaware that the working class had somehow managed to live forever. You also need to tell me how Walt Disney and Darth Mickey figure into this narrative of oppression.

Re: Public Domain

[bill_mcgonigle]

You say things like that as if Congressman aren't bought-and-paid-for, with legislation going to the highest bidder. Talk about living in a Land of Make Believe.

Re:Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone who's never owned or maintained a house, nevermind a hotel...

Re:Public Domain

[scottrocket]

Because YOU HAVE TO WORK TO KEEP A HOTEL IN OPERATION.

Or a golf course.

Or even a slum rental property.

But Mickey Mouse? The only work being done on that is paying lawyers to get copyright extended again.

Mod parent up, for 144 years. I wish my properties were maintenance free...

Re: Public Domain

[Bing Tsher E]

'Clinton' is a dead political dynasty. 'Obama' is an ex-president (like dubya and jimmycarter). Why throw them up there like anything that will ever matter again?

Re: Public Domain

[Bing Tsher E]

You're kidding, right? Go out, then, and find some HVAC guys to maintain your hotel at minimum wage. We'll watch.

Re:Public Domain

[The Grim Reefer]

Does it matter? My cost as a hotel owner would be to pay minimum wage to some worker that cleans the room and the toilet, changes the sheet, towels, soaps etc. I would be delegating the work... not doing it myself.

What other cost is there in maintenance? The maintenance cost seems quite tiny compared to the hotel itself.

It's not that I'm not agreeing with you in principle, but you really have no clue at all. The upkeep and maintenance on any property is not cheap, and a commercial property even more so.

Property taxes are not low on commercial properties in most places. Parking lots have to be repaved regularly, roofs need to be replaced, unless it's a mom and pop hotel, it will need to be remodeled every 10 years or so.

Insurance premiums ain't cheap. People flood bathrooms and fall asleep while smoking in rooms that they shouldn't be smoking in. So then there's all of legal and collections crap that takes lawyers and other people to deal with.

If you think you have a high utility bill in the summer or winter, just imagine what it costs in electricity for a hotel. Water usage it also considerable. You also have heater/AC units in every room. They break and need to be fixed and replaced. Beds need to be replaced frequently, carpet wears out. Maintenance men and grounds keepers need to be paid as well as equipment.

As far as I know, all Hilton type hotels have at least a breakfast service. So a kitchen needs expensive equipment, which again need to be maintained/fixed. Staff is needed to prepare, serve and clean up. I would guess a lot of food gets thrown out as well.

Basically think of all of the expenses you have at home, but times a couple hundred. Plus the cost of having someone clean your house, mow the grass and trim the bushes, cook the meals, fix all of the shit that gets broken and worn out (but faster because it's higher traffic and no one gives a damn about it), etc.

If owning and running a hotel worked the way you seem to think, I'd go buy or build one tomorrow. But it's not some simple one time cost and it just rakes in money type of situation.

Re:Public Domain

[ravenshrike]

Oh how funny, you seem to think that there aren't just as many big businesses supporting net neutrality as opposing it.

Re:Public Domain

[nmb3000]

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.

Re:Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Mickey is a *MOUSE*, not a house.

Re:Public Domain

[Mandrel]

Are you arguing against the legitimacy of passive investment income like intellectual property and interest income, or only against long copyright terms? What term would you consider optimal?

The Constitution of the Soviet Union didn't contain the socialist declaration "to each according to his needs" but instead "to each according to his work", associating reward with effort. Are you arguing along these lines, or are you more inclined to the capitalist "to each according to his deployment assets", where a government should protect the (inheritable) asset of intellectual property against confiscation for a long period.

Don't get indignant, I'm just being a devil's advocate.

Re:Public Domain

[LostMyBeaver]

Let's assume you were a congressperson. How exactly would you get into this position?

Let's assume you start as a servant of the people. You became so pissed off that you wanted to stand up for yourself and those around you. So you're going to become a politician and make America great again. You know that to do this, you would need to be in a position of power. Being in the state senate or a mayor isn't going to change anything you seem to care about. You need a seat in the house, the senate, the presidency or to become a supreme court justice.

I think the supreme court is out because it's reserved for lawyers.

I think the presidency is out because it's reserved for reality TV show people.

You're down to rising through the ranks to the house or the senate.

Before you start, you should sit and read a few books you thoroughly ignored in primary and secondary school. You should learn how the government is designed and how it is built. You should choose the house or the senate and then you should study what your job responsibilities should be as well as study strategies that could be used to make a difference while in the office. You should also consider taking a few night courses on law to better understand how the laws passed by the government are used and enforced from a practical perspective.

You should choose most importantly whether you want to be a person who presents new laws, someone who simply exercises a vote, or someone who will attempt to influence the votes of others in favor or against proposals from others.

As someone presenting new laws, you need to amass huge amounts of political capitol in a very expensive power struggle. You'll need sponsors to help you. Of course you can't take gifts or payments, even harmless ones like guns from the NRA. Instead, you would need to ask some political powerhouse to make A LOT of noise for you. To pay for this, you'll have to agree to do something for them.

As someone exercising a vote, you will be paid with political capitol. Your "peers" will be calling you and vetting you and trying to get that vote they need from you. Of course, you don't want anything from them and therefore you'll gain no capitol. You'll just vote in a way that will help with this one issue. Of course, you don't give a shit whether the salt flats of Utah should be swept and you can't be bothered to research whether it's even a good idea. In fact, because you're now in D.C. you have extremely limited access to resources or freedoms you could have used earlier to research it. You have a black tie dinner you absolutely have to attend because some other law you do actually care about is trying to build enough political capitol to be passed and if you don't stand with the group you support on this, it won't have any hope of passing.

As someone hoping to be a power broker and influence votes, you'll spend most every second on the hill getting support from companies, your peers, etc... you'll need to throw parties which cost money. You'll need to get those sponsored through channels which aren't considered conflicts of interest. You'll need to get in front of cameras and you'll need the right clothing, etc...

Ok, so now that you're learning the ropes and you have a plan of where you want to be to represent the people best, you'll have to figure out how to get there.

You learn that pretty much anyone can run for office. In fact, you don't even have to run to get into office, the people just have to vote for you. So that's easy enough... you just need to get the people to vote for you... and remember it's critical you don't sell your soul to get there. You want to get to Washington with no major political capitol owed.

So... what are your options.

1) Latch onto a power broker who will back you as opposed to their normal horse. If you use this guy, you're nothing more than his puppet and you'll have already failed.

2) Join a political party and gain their backing and support for running. Remember they'll generall

Re: Public Domain

[LostMyBeaver]

I hated GWB as president. His dad too. But have you seen interviews with GWB afterwards?

I've come to realize he was one of the nicest people I've ever heard of. If there's such a thing as an angel... imagine GWB as a smiling cherubic flying baby with a halo and a diaper. He was truly one of the nicest people EVER to step into that office. And if love and care counts for anything, he was possibly the greatest man ever to step into that office.

Oh... and he's a nitwit.

I just can't bring myself to call him hurtful names like Dubya anymore.

A bunch of big bad people like Cheney used him as their meal ticket to get into the power position and they let him stand there helpless in front of the American people as they jammed a carrot up his ass and made his lips move.

We talked about having Bush and others court martialed. The truth is, Cheney and the others should be court martialed for child abuse which is basically what they did to GWB. Cheney would walk into GWBs office and offer him a Werther's Original and gently ask him to drop to his knees.

Be nice to GWB... he really tried his best. He was absolutely horrible at the job, but he really really really tried his best. More often than not, he managed to color within the lines with his crayons.

And I hope someday to have a beer with the guy and tell him I was truly wrong to say so many bad things about him while he was president. I didn't truly grasp his situation until he left office and was able to speak more comfortably... without all the campaigning and saving face.

Re: Public Domain

[bool2]

Thanks for the explantation of how politics works in the USA. For a Brit it's very useful! Money really is everything in the USA. I think your Constitution needs a rewrite. (Not that we don't have our own problems!)

Re: Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

I had always said of shrub that he seemed like the sort of man you'd happily be friends with, if it weren't for his family. They give him the position of president.Without his family connections, he'd be a burger flipper and nice to know.

With the proviso that someoene who tells jokes and laughs as a person is hanged in front of him is not entirely nice no matter what else they do.

Re:Public Domain

[houghi]

So if I am a rich company I can afford it, I can pay it, but if I am some poor singer-songwriter, they can just use it to sell soap after 10 years?

No, just no. What need to happen is that it stops after 10 years, period. No extension for anybody or anything. However there is a downside of this and that will upset a lot of people, so here it goes:
This could mean the end of series like the Marvel Universe or the repeated Star Wars movies. They would have to come up with new ideas all the time.
It would also mean that a song goes into public domain faster and that other performers might make a better version of it and we have to listen to that.
The people who will be upset with it are the people that own the studios, so there are not that many. We should still be aware that they won't be able to buy that new condo every year. Think of them. Think of them as long as they think about you.

Re:Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

If businesses and real estate can be owned indefinitely, and passed down to heirs forever, why can't IP be passed down as well for infinity?

You have not understood the difference between tangible assets and intangible assets. Please read up on this and come back.

(waiting)

Are you back now? Good. Now that you are a bit more informed you can see that if you take a tangible asset from someone, they no longer have it. We call this stealing. This is universally understood as bad in the general case. Also, if you try to steal something from me I can protect myself from theft and if you get hurt while trying to steal, it I have not attacked you, I have acted in self-defense, within reasonable limits. The laws around this is easy to understand, even for children.

As for intangible assets, like copyrighted work, there is nothing inherent in it that grants you these rights. If someone uses your work, you still have access to it. It is not gone. Also, it is harder to detect someone unlawfully using it, etc. This made it hard for content creators back then, before the copyright. Essentially, you wrote a piece of music and I played it and got money for it without compensating you. Many musicians and artists back in the day had patrons paying your upkeep to be able to enjoy your music. It was hard to be an artist. And the incentive to create was low. This is bad. We want creation of new works.

So, society (that is we people) decided to band together to protect the poor artists. We said "let us help with making sure that only YOU get to use your work". But we also recognized that every work has been influenced by other work that has come before. So if we deny future artists this back catalog, again we would stifle creation.

So, we said, "in return for helping you make sure that only you get to use your work, we want this protection to be time-limited. After a number of years, where only you may profit from it, it becomes public domain. And then everyone can use it to create new and wonderful things."

I like this spirit of copyright. I want content creators to be able to make a living. The earnings they make during this time can be handed down to their heirs if they want. But I also want things to spread and be used, modified and changed when the time is right.

So let's get back to your totally inappropriate analogy. A business or real estate requires further investment just to keep existing. You cannot sit on your ass and expect money to roll in automagically. They are tangible assets. If you don't renovate your real estate it eventually crumbles and fall down. In this case it might even be confiscated by the local government in most places since it is neglected/abandoned and a public danger. A business not attended will eventually go bankrupt (if they have any bills needed to be paid) or just not generate any money (and thus, those heirs wont get a dime).

Do you understand why copyright is not the same as property rights now? Good. There are other intangible assets too (trademarks and patents for example). They work in other ways than copyright and should not be confused with each others.

Now that you know much more, cut the shit with "the ruling class vs the working class". I definitely belong to the latter, but I want reasonable copyright. 144 years is NOT reasonable. No living person, nor their children, and most likely their grand-children, will ever see something created fall into the public domain and thus see derivative works created from it. If this is not stagnating the rate of creativity, I don't know what is.

Some might say: "so what, there are enough of creativity anyway". Perhaps, but consider something like the comic "Fables" by Bill Willingham. It is a wonderful modern take on how the fables of yesterday (Snow White, Big bad wolf, Cinderella, Pinocchio, etc) live today. All those are in the public domain which means that Willingham could use them. Heck, Disney have started their empire on the shoulders of many of these pub

Re:Public Domain

[rworne]

I think the reason Disney always gets mentioned is that every time Steamboat Wille gets close to going into the public domain, Congress adds another extension to the copyright.

That's what happened last time this came up. There was a big fight brewing over this, Sonny Bono - a former entertainer, ex-husband of Cher, and then a politician, wrapped himself around a tree at a ski slope and died. They then attached his name to the legislation and got it passed. The other name for the legislation was the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" - because it was quite clear on why exactly they were passing this and why they were in such a rush to do so.

Re: Public Domain

[rworne]

This went to the SCOTUS, and they said that it was constitutional as long as they did not grant copyright in perpetuity, they can keep on extending piecemeal it as long as they want to.

Re:Public Domain

[JaredOfEuropa]

The biggest deception in this debate was the invention of the term "intellectual property". Copyright was created for the same reason that patents were set up: to encourage creators and inventors to publish and share their work for the benefit of society, not by turning their work into property, but by granting them a temporary monopoly on their work that allows them to make a living. The arrangement was primarily for the benefit of society; the revenues were meant to convince the author to publish instead of sit on their creation or not even bothering to create it in the first place. And the arrangement was always meant to be temporary, something that was apparently even set down in the US constitution.

There's no reason to extend copyright beyond the life of the author. Copyright exists to encourage that author to publish more, but when the author is gone, there's no one to encourage. There is ZERO benefit to society in keeping copyright beyond the life of the author, or even a negative benefit: look at how some heirs continue to meddle with whatever others choose to do with the material (see: Tolkien estate). Maybe the idea that copyright doesn't pass down to his heirs will dissuade an author from doing his best, but personally I find that a rather far-fetched notion. The heirs are still welcome to whatever fortune the author made from his works during his lifetime, but they have no rights to the works themselves.

Re: Public Domain

[reanjr]

I think it's fair to say at least one of those wars was started by Saudi-backed terrorists with material support from Pakistani intelligence services.

Re: Public Domain

[reanjr]

Yeah, people who think money is everything in politics are always the ones confused when people like Trump get elected over the much better funded Clinton campaign. An order of magnitude more money might flip an election, but otherwise it's more to do with regional economics and wedge issues, and traditional values like good looks and charisma.

Re: Public Domain

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

I think GP's last paragraph was indeed in the spirit of make-believe wishful thinking. It would take a frikking miracle for it to happen.

Re: Public Domain

[Wycliffe]

If Hilton Hotel heirs can live off their hotels' income for a thousand years, why can't Elvis' heirs do the same?

That shouldnâ(TM)t be allowed either. Perpetual wealth will eventually destroy the USA. We need to bring back the estate tax and not allow perpetual corporations to gobble up the world.

Re: Public Domain

[backslashdot]

Until they claw back the public domain stuff too. Do you think they are going to sit by and let you not buy their stuff?

They may not even need to purchase any laws. I mean, try making a Snow White movie and see if Disney doesnâ(TM)t deploy a team of lawyers on you.

Re:Public Domain

[Dread_ed]

The extension of copyright law is merely the codification of our current government and economic system's goals, namely maintaining the current order through stagnation and direct control of "progress."

The public domain is intentionally impoverished, the creative space is blocked at every turn, regulations designed to make things work are turned into a defense system of how things *currently* work. Change, advancement, and competition are the enemies of the status quo and must be destroyed.

Oppression shows up in many forms. This is just another form of it that the 99% will complain about while the 1% takes the ball and heads back to their mansion. It's not their ball to take, but you spineless weaklings are so busy fighting each other over the rules of the game and who did what to whom last game that you don't even realize the ball is gone, the game is over, and none of it even maters.

In short, I advocate for a level of meta-cognition which places this attack on the electorate in the proper context. It is a barrier to entry erected by those who already have what is ours. It is paying someone else rent for something you own outright. It is taxation by a corporate entity without representation. It is just another power structure playing the "how far can we push their heads into this giant pile of rancid shit?" game and still being surprised at how pliant and cooperative you fools are.

I used to imagine how awesome it would be when my fellow Americans realized how they are being intentionally controlled with employment uncertainty, artificial economic restriction, de facto taxation, and frozen into ossified classes by our government puppets and the corporations and money changers who own them. Reality has set in and I am terrified to learn I am surrounded by planarians. You feel pain and can only see your fellow planarians to vent your anger and aggression on, never even comprehending there are powers and forces above you which are responsible for your pain. The only people you will hurt when you rise up are the people just like you, the ones under the thumb of the oppressors just like you are. You'll sing the praises of your oppressors, savaging your brothers and sisters mercilessly in the name of your tormentors, and returning to the abuses of your masters begging for more pain and subjugation.

And I have to watch it all play out, predictable, excruciating, and unavoidable. Thanks y'all, you have turned the great experiment into a sitcom.

Re:Public Domain

[luther349]

i think each work needs to file for the extension on its own. that would let the stuff nobody gives a crap about go into the puplic wile they can keep there mouse forever.

Re:Public Domain

[wisnoskij]

Mickey Mouse is a bad example for this. He is currently not only Disney's mascot, but their logo. If Mickey Mouse was in the public domain than 99.99999999% of all work done with him after that point would be shady companies trying to sell products that look like they are official Disney merchandise. Honestly, the world is probably a better place without hundreds of thousands of knockoff theme parks, movies, t shirts, and plushies designed to trick consumers.

In practice all of these things would probably remain illegal based on trademark violations, and if not that fraud, but with it theoretically being possible to create works featuring Mickey Mouse legally it makes it a huge uphill battle for justice to prevail in these cases.

Perhaps it makes sense to take away their control over his early content. My all means, make every film/tv show produced over 80 years ago free and legal to copy.

Re: Public Domain

[Raenex]

You're a fool. Bush is a politician. He lies for a living.

Re: Public Domain

[astrojetsonjr]

As someone that lives in Delaware, I always considered Joe Biden to be one of our greatest Senators. He had Delaware and American in mind as he did things. He was a huge asset. Senator Coons is just a ass. He's been involved with three other stupid bills. And I'm equally surprised to see Senator Booker of NJ as a co-Senator on this. I guess it's true that the two of them will be running for President, since they are clearly on the pander trail. Please Coons, stop bringing shame on the First State.

Re:Public Domain

[Mandrel]

While a strong case can be made that short patent terms help progress, the case is weaker for the copyright of artworks, which can be used as inspiration without infringement, plus some remixing when fair use and compulsory licencing is also law.

I agree that there is a cut-off time when society has more right to ownership than distant descendants, but what about when copyright is owned by immortal corporations?

Re: Public Domain

[LostMyBeaver]

First of all... I like the guy now... I'm not calling him a nitwit as a cruelty. It's like when I look at my teenaged daughter and realize she's the most beautiful thing in the world to me but am glad that her attention to personal hygiene as opposed math, science and art will probably make it so I won't have to worry about boyfriends for a while longer. It's a simple assessment.

Watch the interviews with him and hear what he really has to say. Especially the interviews post-presidency. He is a GOOD PERSON but he actually entered office believing that simply being a good person would make it so that the Americans wouldn't be mean to him. I mean, he honestly seems utterly confused as to why people would say bad things about him. Almost like a child.

I believe strongly that while he was in office, no matter what decision he was presented, if it was done in the most positive light, he was likely to be malleable. If decisions were kept simple for him and presented in a clear white hat/black hat way, he would choose the white hat way.

Don't mistake me, when you vote, you generally always know (except this time) that when you vote republican, you're voting for the cabinet who is choosing their visible representative to present the team in the most positive way. This is one of the reasons that Reagan would sit during the trials and say "I can neither confirm or deny the allegations" and the reason is simple, the cabinet was making the decisions and using a friendly personality that people would genuinely want to like to present them to the people.

When you vote democrat, you're choosing an individual who would need to pay back a lot of favors they owned from working their way into office. This is why you can get a really nice guy like Obama who fills the entire White House with RIAA and MPAA lawyers as his legal staff. Then when the cabinet makes decisions, the president has to stand up and knowingly do what he's told because that was part of the deal.

GWB took a beating because he had Cheney pulling his strings and Cheney was not a good person. He never even pretended to be one. Just as GWB was not a smart person an he genuinely never pretended to be one.

If you need any proof of GWB's brains follow a timeline.

GWB, the son of an oil man and upcoming politician attended Yale from 1964 to 1968. His father won his seat to the house in 1966.
GWB studied at Harvard from 1973 to 1975. His father has just served as Nixon's ambassador to the UN and had then become the chairman of the Republican National Committee making him one of the most influential men in Washington.

Bush graduated Yale with a 2.35 GPA. He never received an A and one professor even gave him a D. When interviewed on the topic, he would joke about being bad at school (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/05/21/self-deprecating-bush-talks-to-yale-grads.html)

Keep in mind that he studied history at Yale. An undergraduate degree in history is not particularly demanding. It's not until you study for a masters or Ph.D. in history that you have a lot of stiff requirements. Depending on how seriously you take it, a bachelor in history can be extremely useful or it can be a fluff degree. As it's very popular among the rich and famous, I'll let you decide what is more likely for a guy who managed to pull a C.

Let's also consider that if your father is rich and powerful, and I would never ever suggest that Yale would ever do something of the sort, but if your father is rich and powerful, your professors most likely would prefer not to receive a phone call about having given a D or F to the son of said person. But again, he never once got a single A as a grade... not even on the easy classes.

GWB tried to enter law school, but was turned down to University of Texas School of Law. We're not talking about Ivy League here. A millionaire son of the ambassador to the UN was turned down for a slot in a state school's law program. We're talking about LAW!!! a field of study where earning brownie points with

Re: Public Domain

[LostMyBeaver]

Seriously... watch him and try to do it with less of a focus on him as a politician. Watch interviews with him as a person.

Is it that he lies like a politician or is it that he was never given enough information to be able to lie? I'm simply not convinced in his case. I can't tell for sure.

Re: Public Domain

[LostMyBeaver]

I wrote some more on it below to an AC about why I feel Bush wasn't the sharpest spoon in the drawer. So I'll avoid reiterating.

What I will repeat is my stance about the differences between the political parties (with the exception of the current administration)

The republican party works as a team to establish a cabinet of power wielders and power brokers with something of a common compatible message. The are built of representatives of businesses, churches, special interests groups and they often even believe what they're selling. They then hold primaries to test the people to identify who will have the best chances of conveying their message to the people (friend or foe) and also to gain enough traction to make it into office. As you've heard many times, the GOP doesn't actually have to choose what the people vote for in the primaries. That's not their purpose. It's just a practical means of polling.

The democratic party generally takes people who decide to work up through the ranks. They gather the strength they need from around them. They make friends, coalitions, partnerships, and of course co-dependencies. Where the republicans have individual cabinet members making promises and owing favors, the democrats instead do this as individuals and as they gain power and favor, they progress through the ranks, but at the cost of owing all those around them. We saw this with Sanders vs. Clinton. It will probably never be made clear what happened here, but I believe that Sanders must have been pushed out because Clinton was willing to make more promises with compromises.

To a certain extent, the republican system makes more sense. The GOP found a great work around for the term-limits. If the power resides with the cabinet as opposed to the president, then it doesn't really matter who the president is so long as the voters chose their party. The cabinet will simply roll from one republican president to the next to the next. This is why you see that Reagan, Bush and Bush's presidencies were so similar.

Another thing which is obvious in this case is that in order for the GOP cabinet to maintain their power, it's important to have a president that is the perfect balance of being loved by the people and being simple enough to "control" and I don't like the term control, but I couldn't find a better word. Maybe mold or bendable... I'm not sure.

The idea is that the president should never have to lie. If he is kept only informed enough to stay on message and share himself with the people as one of them, that's a perfect thing.

He of course will make decisions. But the decisions he'll be given to make is "Mr. President. If we do this, it would be good, but if we do this other thing, it would be bad. You choose sir". And this way he could honestly sit in front of the people and say "I made the decision to...."

This is not a bad system. Most every election, people are not voting for the power and decision makers. They are voting for the face of the person who will represent the power and decision makers while sitting in the oval office. Why shouldn't the president be little more than a puppet. If anything, it probably would be better than someone who makes unilateral decisions with no advice from the experts they have available to them within the same house... and posting them on twitter.

Did Bush start two wars... hmmm...

Ok... Bush made the decision twice.

One time he was told "Bad people did bad things to us. If we don't want them to do more bad things to us, we have to do bad things to them. It's not an easy choice Mr. President, but if you choose to do bad things to them, at least we can stop them from hurting Americans. It's your choice sir"

The other time he was told "A bad man is doing bad things to people we don't even like. But more importantly, he's trying to make nuclear bombs to make it so we can never keep those people safe from him again later. If you choose to, we can get that bad man out of power before he can make the bad weapons th

Re: Public Domain

[Raenex]

Link to an interview, then. But just because he comes off friendly in person years out of office doesn't mean he'd tell you his darkest secrets as a politician. I recall seeing a documentary on Bush/Kerry, that delved into their backgrounds, and Bush was a lot craftier than people give him credit for. The "guy I'd like to have a beer with" is a persona.

Re:Public Domain

[lsatenstein]

This is an American Phenomenon. The rest of the world will not comply, or just prevent those American copyrighted items from being available in the rest of the world.

And they should penalize the copyright holder for ensuring that his copyrighted items do not leave continental United States, or Hawaii or Alaska.

Re:Public Domain

[Cinnamon Beige]

So if I am a rich company I can afford it, I can pay it, but if I am some poor singer-songwriter, they can just use it to sell soap after 10 years?

I'd think it very safe to say that if you're a poor singer-songwriter, either you've spent way too much of the money your song has made on drugs or they'd probably not have even bothered using your song if it wasn't out of copyright--it wouldn't be worth spending actual money on.

You can also have the first renewals be pretty much token fees--payments made basically to show that you are still the owner of this intellectual property (to prevent the current problems caused by unclear ownership of IP), and that it's still worth at least a small amount of money to you. The latter end--say, anything past 75 years--might have a "Offered for sale for 1 year/until 1,000 copies are sold, whichever happens second" and "Copy maintained in good condition" as a requirement in addition to the higher fees.

If Disney wants an eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse--let them. Let them pay into the public coffers steadily increasing amounts of money to do it, instead of bribing politicians to just keep extending the copyright period for everybody. .

Re: Public Domain

[RevDisk]

First thing to remember about the Constitution, it is entirely a reaction to British colonialism. Basically imagine if your government had just thrown out British soldiers who were running around burning things and killing people. Who could come back at any second to burn more things and kill more people. Which they did. So, you can probably imagine why Americans might look Brits a bit funny when they make 'helpful' suggestions on the Constitution. Your government's whole occupation and murdering thing is why some of the thornier parts exist. Such as removing bits from the Constitution is made intentionally difficult so only extremely broadly acceptable amendments are passed.

Besides that... the financial nature of the US system is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution. Most of the election stuff mentioned in the Constitution is either technical (Prez gets two terms) or delegative (how to elect folks is decided by states). It's a reflection of the culture. We have an extremely powerful government and an insanely large economy. It's economically viable to attempt to buy power. There is strong incentive to do so, as the returns on investment can be very high. So people do. So many people trying to buy power raises the prices, supply and demand.

There are no easy ways to curb this. Many of the alternatives are far worse. The other thing to ponder when folks discuss major Constitutional changes... Why do you think YOUR viewpoint will automatically win? What happens if you somehow prompt such a major change and the exact opposite to want you want occurs?

Every utopia is a dystopia to someone else. Because you can only enforce a utopia on either a mono culture, or by oppressing the hell out of everyone who disagrees. Better a messy compromise that represents everyone, even if only partially.

Re:Public Domain

[clovis]

If businesses and real estate can be owned indefinitely, and passed down to heirs forever, why can't IP be passed down as well for infinity?

You have not understood the difference between tangible assets and intangible assets. Please read up on this and come back.

(waiting)

Are you back now? Good. Now that you are a bit more informed you can see that if you take a tangible asset from someone, they no longer have it. We call this stealing. This is universally understood as bad in the general case. Also, if you try to steal something from me I can protect myself from theft and if you get hurt while trying to steal, it I have not attacked you, I have acted in self-defense, within reasonable limits. The laws around this is easy to understand, even for children.

As for intangible assets, like copyrighted work, there is nothing inherent in it that grants you these rights. If someone uses your work, you still have access to it. It is not gone. Also, it is harder to detect someone unlawfully using it, etc. This made it hard for content creators back then, before the copyright. Essentially, you wrote a piece of music and I played it and got money for it without compensating you. Many musicians and artists back in the day had patrons paying your upkeep to be able to enjoy your music. It was hard to be an artist. And the incentive to create was low. This is bad. We want creation of new works.

So, society (that is we people) decided to band together to protect the poor artists. We said "let us help with making sure that only YOU get to use your work". But we also recognized that every work has been influenced by other work that has come before. So if we deny future artists this back catalog, again we would stifle creation.

So, we said, "in return for helping you make sure that only you get to use your work, we want this protection to be time-limited. After a number of years, where only you may profit from it, it becomes public domain. And then everyone can use it to create new and wonderful things."

I like this spirit of copyright. I want content creators to be able to make a living. The earnings they make during this time can be handed down to their heirs if they want. But I also want things to spread and be used, modified and changed when the time is right.

So let's get back to your totally inappropriate analogy. A business or real estate requires further investment just to keep existing. You cannot sit on your ass and expect money to roll in automagically. They are tangible assets. If you don't renovate your real estate it eventually crumbles and fall down. In this case it might even be confiscated by the local government in most places since it is neglected/abandoned and a public danger. A business not attended will eventually go bankrupt (if they have any bills needed to be paid) or just not generate any money (and thus, those heirs wont get a dime).

Do you understand why copyright is not the same as property rights now? Good. There are other intangible assets too (trademarks and patents for example). They work in other ways than copyright and should not be confused with each others.

Now that you know much more, cut the shit with "the ruling class vs the working class". I definitely belong to the latter, but I want reasonable copyright. 144 years is NOT reasonable. No living person, nor their children, and most likely their grand-children, will ever see something created fall into the public domain and thus see derivative works created from it. If this is not stagnating the rate of creativity, I don't know what is.

Some might say: "so what, there are enough of creativity anyway". Perhaps, but consider something like the comic "Fables" by Bill Willingham. It is a wonderful modern take on how the fables of yesterday (Snow White, Big bad wolf, Cinderella, Pinocchio, etc) live today. All those are in the public domain which means that Willingham could use them. Heck, Disney have started their empire on the shoulder

Re:Public Domain

[KingBenny]

yea i find myself willing to pay less and less for that which tries to force me there's so much stuff out there, its hard to believe people pay ridiculous money for prefab chaingang produce anymore but this finally proves politics at high level is ruled by old nazi vampires, i mean 144 years ... what's next .? consecutive life sentences or something ?

Re: Public Domain

[noodler]

Trump got elected because of that other thing politics is about: Lies.

Ick

[mentil]

144 years?! That's Gross!

This is great news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, something both Demonrats and Republicunts can agree on!

Re: This is great news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and fucks over the regular people. A wet dream of political types.

Re: This is great news.

[gtall]

Yes, and no. They do it to pay off their political contributors. The regular people are mere collateral damage and never rise to being interesting until election time when they are trolled with bogeymen and dead unicorns.

Ridiculous

[manu0601]

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.

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?

Re:Ridiculous

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Ridiculous

[mark-t]

They are public domain.

Old Mickey Mouse cartoons are already public domain in Canada, for example.

But the character is still trademarked by Disney, so there are still limits on what you can do.

One can, however, copy such old works freely here... and give them away or even charge for them. Derivative works are also allowed, but the characters and depictions would have to be changed because of trademark protection.

Re:Ridiculous

[dgatwood]

One can, however, copy such old works freely here... and give them away or even charge for them. Derivative works are also allowed, but the characters and depictions would have to be changed because of trademark protection.

I think if it turns out Disney is pushing for this, the only appropriate response is mass rebellion, in the form of creating DeepFake porn starring Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Agree to stop only if and when they agree to stop being copyright thugs.

Bonus points if you synchronize the moans to the tune of "Ooh, Mickey, you're so fine".

Re:Ridiculous

[rtb61]

Obviously other countries are looking a reviewing copyright terms and reducing them, hence the US corporate counter move of doubling them but of course they actually want to make it permanent, you know like the scientology contracts, a billion years.

What happens when the rest of the world goes their own way, US import revenues dry up anyhow. They will of course threaten economic conflict but those doing the importing can only really threaten war. Economic war, does not work for the economic parasite because it cuts them off from their victims and they end up starving.

So this story nothing more than proof that other countries are already sticking it to the US behind the scenes to cut back on copyright terms, this move pointless, other than showing their hand, laughably pointless. 144 years of internet content, you wont be able to publish anything in about 25 years without infringing someone's copyright on some internet content. Reality is, copyright needs to be radically shortened to take into account the sheer volume of internet content and you can not separate content types some having protection and others not. The internet will force a reduction in copyright terms, otherwise everyone will end up existing content blocked.

Those trade war meetings with China did not go so well, huh ;)?

Re:Ridiculous

[PGaries]

Mickey Mouse is still used in the Kingdom Hearts game franchise and Disney's theme parks.

Re:Ridiculous

[PopeRatzo]

DeepFake porn starring Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

Throw Pluto in the mix for some cuck porn, but pay him $130,000 to sign an NDA. That seems to be the going rate.

Re:Ridiculous

[currently_awake]

The solution is Property Tax. They want their Intellectual Property to be treated just like real estate, I suggest we oblige them. And the property tax should be payable in every country where the copyright is protected, with the revenue used to pay for copyright enforcement.

Re:Ridiculous

[digitect]

Mod parent up, that's a great way to self-regulate the supposed value of the copyright.

Re: Ridiculous

[Bing Tsher E]

Does Pluto get to go on Rachel Maddoc's show, and all the Day Shows7, after collecting the 130k?

Re: Ridiculous

[Bing Tsher E]

And huge volumes of licensed merchandise, i.e. shirts, balloons, watches, neckties, etc.

Re: Ridiculous

[PopeRatzo]

Does Pluto get to go on Rachel Maddoc's show, and all the Day Shows7, after collecting the 130k?

If Mickey doesn't sign the NDA and claims the cucking never happened, then absolutely. He gets to go on all the cable TV shows. You know, live by the cable news and die by the cable news. Also, everybody likes dogs.

Re: Ridiculous

[Z00L00K]

Here's an interesting Mickey Mouse: https://www.tradera.com/item/3...

Re:Ridiculous

[dryeo]

Every treaty will include copyright harmonization. Right now this is probably happening with NAFTA, the latest secret treaty that is being worked on.
What you thought stopping the TPP would end there?

Re:Ridiculous

[Darinbob]

Mickey Mouse is a trademark. The film in which Mickey Mouse first appeared should normally be considered out of the copyright period if sanity prevailed. However that would not necessarily mean that every short in which Mickey Mouse appeared would have been out of copyright. So the appearance of Mickey Mouse in a modern game is somewhat irrelevant to the purposes of discussing copyright terms.

Disney does NOT need to protect Steamboat Willy copyright in order to protect copyright on all Mickey Mouse works.

Re:Ridiculous

[Peter P Peters]

the only appropriate response is mass rebellion, in the form of creating DeepFake porn starring Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

You know Mickey and Minnie are cartoons? And that Deep faking been possible with cartoons since, well... cartoons were invented? 'Deep Fake' Mickey porn has been around so long it's almost our of copyright....

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh they need revenue to protect all that new property on the copyright holder's behalf. Unless you want to get government out of it entirely and let them privately enforce their copyright and use none of the real property rights systems like police, courts, justice system etc.

If you don't want to pay government to protect your copyrights, then give them up and you won't be paying ebil gubmints a penny.

Re:Ridiculous

[Rockoon]

after forcing Canada to capitulate on IP

Canada was not forced to do anything. The U.S. didnt threaten to nuke Canada if it didn't "capitulate."

Turns out that when you trade for something you gotta give something in return. Free trade is win-win so long as both parties are rational.

Re:Ridiculous

[Whibla]

It's kind of already been done, and Disney were not happy.

There is a shorter account of the incident under the heading The Air Pirates.

Of course technology moves on, so it's probably time for an animated version rather than a couple of comic books but I'm not sure who'd be 'brave' enough to host it...

Re: Ridiculous

[Bing Tsher E]

But does Goofy, one of Mickeys good friends, throw scraps from the table to Pluto?

$130k is a good return for one lay. Don isn't really *that* ugly and it's certain she has done worse guys for less.

Re: Ridiculous

[PopeRatzo]

$130k is a good return for one lay. Don isn't really *that* ugly and it's certain she has done worse guys for less.

Wait, who is "Don"? We're talking about Mickey and Minnie.

Do you libs have to make everything about Trump?

Re:Ridiculous

[dryeo]

And how often are both sides rational?

Re: Ridiculous

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"Don" is a Duck.
/ducks

Re:Ridiculous

[mark-t]

There is nobody on earth that a 140 year copyright term benefits. Nobody. Even the so-called benefit it offers corporations is specious because other protections exist for corporations that wish to hold onto intellectual property for that length of time. There is precisely *zero* chance that a creator who made something over a hundred years ago is going to be even slightly bothered by somebody copying them because they are already dead... and of course, since the creator is dead, it won't even be possible to get written permission.

Guess I might end up going back to bootlegging....

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like I might just end up having to go back to bootlegging in the future. Don't refer to it as piracy because I have never taken any of the stuff by force while at sea.

I have actually managed to migrate to a completely legit setup over the years. I own (Or to put it more accurately, am legally authorized to use or view) absolutely everything I have. But if this passes, might just say screw it and go back to the old stuff in the future for any older stuff I want.

Will stick to the legal paths for the newer stuff, but after 14 years, I figure I might just go back to what I did in the old high school days. I will respect the law when the lawmakers respect the laws original intent instead of screwing the public twisting the law against that intent.

Truth In Labelling

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to call this bill:

"The Fossilizing Culture, Giving Benefits of Creative Masters To Talentless Heirs, Lazy Marketing and Entitled C-Level Executives Act of 2018"

Re:Truth In Labelling

[HiThere]

Who owns the copyrights? You seem to be assuming that the artists will own them, but I find this quite dubious.

Re:Truth In Labelling

[tepples]

The artist owned the right, at the creation of each such work, to choose to whom to sell his or her interest in each such work.

Re:Truth In Labelling

[LocalH]

The FCGBCMTHLMECLE Act?

That'll never work.

Call it the Fostering Absolute Total Flawless Understanding of Copyright, Kek Act

Re:Truth In Labelling

[LocalH]

But most such acronyms don't really describe the Act itself. *shrug*

Re:Truth In Labelling

[tepples]

This was in fact the case for the 1978 extension for all works other than pre-1972 sound recordings. When the term under the 1909 Act expires, an author can file a notice to reclaim his copyright.

Next on the list

[oldgraybeard]

Life of the Corporate owner of the moment, plus eternity.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Next on the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Life of the Corporate owner of the moment, plus eternity.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Isn't that already true? It is x (whatever x is) years after the copyright holder's death. Since corporations are now 'people' and can hold copyright, the only way to pass 'x' number of years is for the business to fold without having transferred the copyright assets to another 'living' company. As long as some entity that can 'live' owns the copyright, the ticker on 'x' number of years never starts the countdown.

And the mouse strikes again

[rsilvergun]

I was wondering when this was going to happen. They've got a Republican in the Whitehouse who'll sign anything so now's a good time. Not that I think Obama wouldn't have signed this crap, but it still pisses me off. The only politician who _might_ have told them to take a leap is Bernie, and even he might not have bothered. Christ, what a country, what a world.

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[cascadingstylesheet]

I was wondering when this was going to happen. They've got a Republican in the Whitehouse who'll sign anything so now's a good time. Not that I think Obama wouldn't have signed this crap, but it still pisses me off. The only politician who _might_ have told them to take a leap is Bernie, and even he might not have bothered. Christ, what a country, what a world.

Both parties have been doing this all along, obviously.

I'm with the founding fathers on this one (7 years, with one extension to 14), but who cares about old dead white guys, amirite?

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[HiThere]

Sorry, but on this issue the Democrats have been worse than the Republicans. Trump might veto it just to piss off Pelosi.

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[currently_awake]

We need to tell Trump that Obama extended copyright, and was a big supporter of it. It was his signature move!

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[eclectro]

I have been on that damn mouse watch as well. Too bad people can't get behind/against this like they did net neutrality. Btw, corporate welfare knows has no specific party affiliation. Though I do think with Hollywood Hillary it would have been automatic that this thing would have been signed.

Re: And the mouse strikes again

[Bing Tsher E]

Hillary would have had Harvey Weinstein standing next to her on the platform at the signing ceremony.

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[dryeo]

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/...

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[dryeo]

Yet it is Trump pushing IP shit in NAFTA, probably harsher patent protections, perhaps including extensions and obviously doing something about Mickey Mouse being public domain in Canada.
Everyone forgets that Trump and Hillary are good friends when they aren't playing politics. Shit Hillary was a Republican and Trump was a Democrat.

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[Darinbob]

What do you mean, Trump used Hollywood to its max to get himself hyped and turned into a nationally known figure. Republicans are just as much in bed with parts of Hollywood as democrats are.

Re: And the mouse strikes again

[Bing Tsher E]

Get a grip, AC.

Re:And the mouse strikes again

[Whorhay]

And don't forget that those liberal communist scum out in Hollywood are likely behind this!

We need to fit illegal immigration into this somehow...

What incentive

[AHuxley]

will the next generation of smart people have to be creative?
If their parents and grandparents can pass down payments for the next generations?
From the need to support the food and rent of a creative person for been productive to non productive generations getting payments 143 years later?
A book becomes a play. Produced for radio. A book on tape. Then a new movie. A book for the movie with new cover art. A 3d movie. An ebook. A VR game...
Every generational product alteration adds 144 years?

The end of culture

[DMJC]

This is actually the end of culture as we know it. I recently tried to track down some 3D modelling software that I used to use. Legal copies are not available for sale. I've checked, ebay, amazon, gumtree and google. There are no copies out there. I've checked on every warez site on the internet. literally no-one is carrying that program anymore. All the torrents are dead. Microsoft bought the company in 2008 and axed the product in 2009 during the GFC, so the original publisher is unable to help. Literally the only copy I was able to track down was an old pirate copy sitting on a backup of a failed RAID array that I had here. I've since put it on Dropbox and Google Drive (privately not publicly). We are creating a new dark age with these copyright laws. A lot of information is already lost forever and it's only going to get worse from here.

Re:The end of culture

[mentil]

This is a great argument for why one should use Free Software. Even if the binary were widely available, it'll eventually cease to work properly on modern OSes, or support modern features (codecs, colorspaces, etc.).

Re:The end of culture

[DMJC]

This is one of the many reasons why I use Free Software. Originally I switched due to working on a game, but then it became permanent because Microsoft Removed Features from the SideWinder Force Feedback Joysticks under Windows XP (Windows 98se had more control options) and a kernel developer helped me fix the same joystick's Linux support.

Re:The end of culture

[dryeo]

Source code can get lost just like binaries can get lost. I've actually had to ask authors to relicense their GPL work as the source was lost and they were fine with it as they didn't have the source either.
Most people using GPL software do not have the source and it is only the most popular software where lots of people do keep copies of the source.
Things are getting better with places like Github, but even then if Github went down, lots of software source might be lost.

Re:The end of culture

[Joey Vegetables]

Definitely easier to preserve Free and Open content including software. But it can still effectively die if not maintained. Case in point . the hoops I had to jump through to convert some documents I'd stored in KWord format, which AFAIK no currently maintained Free Software supports. I don't remember exactly what I did to convert it but I'm pretty sure it involved installing a very old Linux distro inside a VM.

called it.

[Truekaiser]

I knew there would be another extension act because steamboat willie will be in public domain between 2020 and 2025 under the current rules.

Re:called it.

[ZorinLynx]

How much money does Disney even make from that cartoon anymore? I doubt it's much, so I wonder why they work so hard to protect it.

Re:called it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it would set a precedent: a Disney character in the public domain, OMG!

Re: called it.

[Z00L00K]

They are afraid that others will make money from it.

Vote the bums out

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be voting against any of my representatives who support this no matter what. I'm tired of the corruption.

Sponsor: Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

[rpresser]

Delaware. Land of the corporations. What a fucking surprise.

And notice he's Democratic. Supposedly the good guys, according to some. Proof that it's all about the money.

Re: Sponsor: Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

[argStyopa]

I assumed it was sponsored by a Democrat, because they didn't blame a Republican or Trump.

Re:Sponsor: Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

[serviscope_minor]

And notice he's Democratic. Supposedly the good guys, according to some.

If you subscribe to the puritanical mindset of utter black and white then yes, if the Republicans are the bad guys then the Democrats must be the good guys. I think at the moment, the Republicans are a lot worse but that doesn't make the Dems "good" in some abstract sense.

Time to change the name of the USA

[Required Snark]

The United States of Mickey Mouse.

Jesus.

[argStyopa]

Just fucking STOP already.

Marvel fans take note

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Marvel fans take note

[Anonymous Coward]

An by "author" you usually mean "media conglomerates".

Should copyright be extended to 100+ years, tell me how you reward the author 30 years after his/her death.

Re:Marvel fans take note

[Anonymous Coward]

who is the author? who gets paid? Mostly those 2 are not the same people. But now lets extend it to 144 years, the author could be dead for at least 100 years. The only one really enjoying the money is the company who bought the script. And how do they use it the money they got from it? By paying lots of money to extending this copyright, instead of paying the ones who made it...

Re:Marvel fans take note

[epine]

But outright pirating with no intent of attempting to reward the author for their work is just wrong. Even the worst movie ever made, if you find yourself distracted for 2 hours because of it deserves at least a little love.

I guess you missed the whole debate over generative culture: that the whole point of consuming culture is to acquire your own capacity to make more. Hint: music has been around a lot longer than copyright. (And theorems still get no copyright love.) Off hand, I'm guessing Lessig, Zittrain, and Shirky have all contributed to this discussion.

Good grief, people, aim higher than distraction tithes, in which the purpose of having a job is to make enough money to forget that you have a job, because said job is really nasty.

I've never figured out how to worship at the altar of commercialism without lowing my conception of what society aims to achieve.

So I'm telling you that my love for copyright is waiting for something closer to the generative, pre-commercial ideal.

Re:Marvel fans take note

[doccus]

Anyone who pirates music/tv/movies is a fucking moron.

FTFY.

Bull fucking shit. If the actual AUTHOR or content CREATOR is alibe then you may a point. But I'll be damned if I'm going to reward these same media conglomerates who more than likely are the very ones that sent the creator to an early grave long after the author/original creator(s) is dead.
  And you should know I am one of those affected musicians MYSELF. I fully hope people would pay for my stuff while I am alive, as long as I receive the the proceeds and not big media. But after I'm dead, I could not care less.

add an renewal fee or something to fix abandonware

[Joe_Dragon]

add an renewal fee or something to fix abandonware / orphan works.

fine, but paybacks are a bitch..

[TheGratefulNet]

ok, so you revoke the social rules and keep changing things in your favor. you show no signs of respect for us, the consumers.

well, then, its come to the point where we no longer care about you or your 'rules'.

you started the war, but we can play dirty, too, you know.

When you write

[houghi]

When you write, please do not forget o transfer at least the same amount of money as the companies do.

The rich own every

[OrangeTide]

And they own it forever.

Re:That's cute

[avandesande]

If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
J. Paul Getty

Mickey nothing.

[tepples]

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.

We've got "Corporate Dems"

[rsilvergun]

they're just like Republicans but they (sometimes) support Gay Marriage and abortion rights. But on anything economic they're hard right and in the pocket of the mega-corps, same as the Republicans. There's a wing of the party called "Justice Democrats" that's trying to take the party over from within. They grew out of the Bernie Bros.

Re:We've got "Corporate Dems"

[spitzak]

Post to remove fat fingered mod

Okay

[spiritplumber]

Show me someone living for 144 years and then we can talk. Otherwise, sorry, no deal.

Cryogenics cost money!

[Roger W Moore]

But Mickey Mouse? The only work being done on that is paying lawyers to get copyright extended again.

They have to pay for Walt's cryogenics somehow!

Forever -1 day

[rossz]

Since the Constitution specifically says "limited", they can't simply say copyright is forever. They'll keep extending it "a little more" each time their bosses, e.g. Disney, has stuff in jeopardy of going public domain.

If it was up to me, I'd set copyright to life of the original author plus 20 years (and I feel I'm being far too generous). If a work is claimed by a corporation and they refuse to name a person, then the copyright is for 20 years, period. No extensions, no exceptions.

Re:Forever -1 day

[NormalVisual]

Even then, it defeats the purpose of copyright. It was designed to allow creators the exclusive right to benefit from their work, but it was for a limited time specifically to encourage them to create more instead of resting on their laurels, with society being the ultimate beneficiary once the copyright term expired. Lifelong (or longer) copyright doesn't offer that encouragement if they can rent-seek for the rest of their lives. I've yet to see a cogent, convincing argument as to why the 14+14 term was not sufficient, and why extended terms shouldn't be considered theft (the kind where something is taken and can't be used by the other party) from society. Also, why are artists, writers, etc. entitled to this ridiculous term, when inventors are getting by just fine on a 20-year patent term?

Re:Forever -1 day

[Whorhay]

And just think, if we went to a 14+14 term authors like GRR Martin might actually find the motivation to finish their stories before the first part of it expires.

Re: Increasing rate of God's creation

[Z00L00K]

Make that 6000 years so you can include the first texts too.

Then - who's the copyright holder? And what if it's now no longer possible to read in any other language than ancient Hebrew since the copyright holder says so?

Re: That's cute

[Z00L00K]

And if you own the bank $100 billion it's a government problem.

Easy fix

[Solandri]

No retroactive extensions. Copyright for already-existing works stays at whatever the copyright term was when the work was created. Any extension only applies to works newly created after the extension is put into effect.

The purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." You can only promote something which has yet to be created; you cannot promote something which has already been created. So retroactively extending copyright terms serves no Constitutional purpose.

This eliminates extending copyright duration for personal gain, and limits arguments about whether or not to extend it within the scope of encouraging new works, not profiteering off of existing works.

Re:Legacy?

[Falos]

This is what gets me. Heirs are a mental construct, cultural. They can be arbitrarily picked/removed. There's no implicit connection for passing down stuff, except the simple idea of giving it to whoever you like.

Which is fine for property. And while imaginary property has that in the name, it's not a possession, it's the recognition of a source, it's the acknowledgement of someone who sired a creation, that an epic storyteller put together a mental feast of worldbuilding or whatever.

It makes sense to honor (ie pay) Tolkien on a philosophical level. "The father of XYZ." Because on a logistics level, he's entitled to nothing for "creating" an imaginary thought with no real-world value, albeit beautiful.

His grandson fits neither level. Whatever is being "passed on" (more usually it's bought) is a cardboard stand propped up by publishers and lawyers - there's no such thing. You don't "pass on" being the father of middle-earth. Bobby had nothing to do with it.

My thought...

[aklinux]

In a word, STUPID

Re: They shouldn't

[Falos]

You're talking about possessions.

Which, we could have a conversation about how we call dibs on land, but for now (rightly, some would argue) it's a tangible.

Being an originator isn't. There's no way to pass on "inventor of the sword" to an arbitrary recipient, who somehow becomes the mind-behind and worth recognition (ie in the form of compensation for their conceptual provision)

Re:Why

[Falos]

You're stealing and profiting from whoever invented the chair.

Why bother putting together original ideas if you can just rentseek them indefinitely?

About time

[DrHappyAngry]

So when will Disney, Hannah Barbara and every other cartoon Maker start paying royalties to Mark Twain's estate for The Prince and the Pauper?

I am a pirate.

[SuricouRaven]

And I feel not one even the tiniest trace of guilt for that.

As much as we may love the products of the entertainment industry, most of that industry is seriously lacking a sense of social responsibility.

Re:I am a pirate.

[kackle]

I made an indie video game that was published and put into retail stores nationally. It didn't even pay for itself, since it took me years of time to make. I hope you didn't take a copy for free from me.

Re:I am a pirate.

[SuricouRaven]

Probably not. If it was on steam I may have purchased it, especially if it was in the last Christmas sale. I seldom have reason to visit physical stores now. Everything is more convenient online.

Re: That's cute

[avandesande]

Yes, in this case it's China's problem
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/09/us-owes-china-billion-dollars-problem-beijing-trump-knows

Please don't let this happen

[Qbertino]

This must not happen. We'll all know this is part of the larger "the right to read"scheme that has been going on ever since DRM and software patents. It's one more large brick in that wall.

Please don't let this happen.

No way to stop it

[jonwil]

I gaurantee you there are very few people in Congress willing to stand up to (thanks to the purchase of Marvel, Lucas and now Fox) the largest producer of filmed entertainment on the planet no matter how much lobbying comes from the other side.

Re:No way to stop it

[portwojc]

Taking something from Futurama:

The Vegas odds tonight stand at an unprecedented 1000 to 0. A bet of zero dollars on this not passing paying pays 1000 dollars. Still, very few takers.

Yeah not a very smart bet...

Re: Increasing rate of God's creation

[Z80a]

Disney will be the owner by default, of course.

I need to know

[Daralantan]

How will Mickey Mouse be vastly expanding and improving upon our culture? Will he truly bring us into The Days of Glory?

Mickey Mouse congress

[michelcolman]

Just goes to show what a Mickey Mouse congress the US has...

Great for the Feudalists

[prefec2]

The USA was once the beakon of democracy and freedom with a vibrant culture. True it has a rassistic past and present, but it was getting better for a long time. Then fear crawled up the neck of the USA, poor people get poorer, racism surges, healthcare is further away from a system for all than before, the government alienates allies with lies and cannon boat politics. In short it is now the ugly brother of its former glory. And hollow sound the cry for greatness over the land while the country moves away from former greatness, faster and faster.

Scumbag Senators Sponsoring This Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a true spirit of bipartisanship. I wonder what entertainment industry lobbyists actually wrote the bill, and if there are any retiring senators interested in joining the ranks of these lobbyists. In any case, these politicians need to be held to account. I doubt they want the general public to even be aware of this bill's existence.

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] (Introduced 02/07/2018)
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]* 02/07/2018
Sen. Tillis, Thom [R-NC]* 02/07/2018
Sen. Corker, Bob [R-TN]* 02/07/2018
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]* 02/07/2018
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] 02/28/2018
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] 03/05/2018
Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH] 04/09/2018
Sen. Perdue, David [R-GA] 04/09/2018
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] 04/09/2018
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] 04/09/2018
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] 04/09/2018
Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI] 05/09/2018
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA] 05/09/2018

As long as they pay

[PeterJFraser]

I don't mind how long the copyright is for as long as one has to pay for extensions. Give a copyright for a short time for free, and then charge for renewals. I think 5 years for free would be best, but I would not mind if it was 10 or 25 years. After that time is up, one should have to pay for renewals, and the payment should be in the thousands of dollars. That way Disney and the like could renew the copyright on Snow White and similar works forever, but most works would be free of copyright after a small number of years.

The first question I have is:

[rnturn]

What is about to enter the public domain that absolutely, positively needs to be kept under copyright wraps? And kept under copyright wraps for, what, six/seven generations?

god dam

[luther349]

stop with the blanket extensions. if they want miky mouse forever set it up so they can just extended that. i

Re:Rent seeking

[Dread_ed]

This current regime is incapable of doing anything beyond addressing specific low hanging fruit. The American people's greatest chance of defeating measures like this is the current administration. The overhead of constant litigation has accomplished what our entrenched power structures want, which is limiting the damage that an outsider can do to the carefully orchestrated fleecing system these rent-seeking bloodsucking parasites have installed on the body politic.

Distaste is a tool used to control ignorant people by motivating them to act against their own self interest. If you find yourself feeling distaste toward a public figure it only means you are a victim of your own inability to think clearly. The best revenge against someone you dislike is to control them and make them work for you, not against you. Mindless raging opposition is childlike and stupid. It forces your opponent into an arms race with their overt efforts and turns some of their energy to covert efforts. An easier way to put this is "When you act like a loser you lose."

Diminishing Returns

[nehumanuscrede]

Copyrights should be limited to the lifetime of the original creator ( individual, not corporation ). Extending those rights does nothing more than erode innovation because the motivation isn't there to create new content.

OR

Maybe we should start increasing the tax rate on money made from said copyrights at static intervals. Normal tax rate during the first twenty years, 2x for the next twenty. 3x for next twenty, then 4x, 5x, etc. At some point continuing to milk that idea would become pointless and would guarantee its release into the public domain.

Re:Diminishing Returns

[GonzoPhysicist]

No matter how high the tax got there's still no incentive for them to not just hold on to the IP forever. A better option would be to have exponentially increasing renewal fees for fairly short intervals.

Re:Rent seeking

[GrimSavant]

How will they defeat measures like this? The only mechanisms I can obviously see when comparing with other realms is out of spite (like with the punitive measures attempted against Amazon), or more generalized obstruction that has this as collateral damage.

I don't know where you are getting off in the overall political theory, but the age old problems of regulatory capture and corruption have been an increasing problem in the US, and democratic power is on a decline. As OBE director Mulvaney said, he only met with lobbyists that gave him money, and overall he clearly and crudely laid out the status quo with political figures of his mindset. Money is becoming speech as the supreme court has carved away campaign finance and public corruption laws in the last decade or so, and money begets more money when used to benefit politicians who will steer public policy in favor of their moneyed constituents. The return on investment with such contributions tends to be great. Which, like with 144 year long copyright, has the obvious endgame of rent-seeking.

Mindless raging opposition this is not, it is an informed anger that sees banana republicanism becoming a primary import. This is how the game is played in a lot of countries, and it doesn't take all that much looking to realize that it ends poorly. Maybe you are a billionaire oligarch who can make these guys dance with your puppet strings, but I'm not.

Another Mickey Mouse Law!

[kenwd0elq]

Oh, great, Another Mickey Mouseshit law. Just as the copyright on the original "Steamboat Willie" cartoon from Disney is about to expire, Disney gets everybody spun up about extending the copyright YET AGAIN. The Constitution (remember the Constitution? Our fundament law?) says that patents and copyrights are for "limited" times, and I don't think 144 years qualifies as "limited".

Disney

[Stubbyfingers]

Must be about to have something expire

Re:Rent seeking

[Dread_ed]

America has a simple leader in the White House. He tries to keep his promises, he is incapable of serious duplicity as his tendency toward braggadocio precludes sophisticated subterfuge, and is earnest in his efforts to "Make america great again" in a way that is quite unlike what his words are colored to mean.

Instead of the constant barrage of negative press, accusations that have very little basis in fact, and direct insults, all one would need to do is run a couple of news stories about how copyright law changes are stifling American innovation and dis-empowering the electorate. You would have Trump trumping up and down about how this needs to change right away so Americans can take their rightful place amongst the stars and planets in the firmament.

What? You mean to tell me Disney owns one of our major news outlets? We are well and truly fucked, then. Never mind.

Who gets the royalties?

[martinfb]

Who gets the royalties? Who lives that long?

How about leaving copyright to the authors until released or death.
After then, any further copyright royalties go to benefit the public; NOT the inheriting entity - human or corporate.
Oh, and those secondary copyright terms can be limited.