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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

Ick

[mentil]

144 years?! That's Gross!

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

[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

[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

[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...

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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.

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]

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

[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.

Re:Ridiculous

[digitect]

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

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.

Okay

[spiritplumber]

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

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.

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: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: 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.