3 ms·

If you're wondering how we got into this mess: it's mostly Mickey Mouse's fault. https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/ https://pr

If you're wondering how we got into this mess: it's mostly Mickey Mouse's fault. https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/ https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-...

tzs 9y ago
That's not really accurate. According to your link, Disney copyrights have been extended twice. The first was with the Copyright Act of 1976. The main purposes of the 1976 Act were to update US copyright law to better conform to the Universal Copyright Convention and to prepare for the US to later join the Berne Convention; to update it to take into account new technology developed since the 1909 Act such as television, movies, radio, and sound recordings; and to codify various doctrines from case law include fair use. The copyright extension in the 1976 Act was a side effect of changing terms to match those of Berne countries. As far as I've been able to tell, the 1976 Act had very little opposition. Disney almost certainly was in favor of it, but I've found no evidence that they had any particular influence in drafting it or getting it passed, or even spent any lobbying money on it. There was no need for them to do so. Disney did lobby for the 1998 extension (as did most major content creators), which extended US copyright terms to match those of Europe. I don't know how Disney successfully lobbying once (as part of a large group) for a copyright extension turned into the internet myth that they have constantly been getting copyright extensions.
- Tomte 9y ago
  Lawrence Lessig claimed so. See the Free Culture presentation. He makes it look as all these copyright extensions (centuries back, to the Statute of Anne) were Disney‘s doing. That was highly influential. Lessig is a very gifted speaker.
- bsimpson 9y ago
  I feel like Lessig painted copyright extension as an abuse of Disney's lobbyists in Free Culture, but it's been more than a decade since I've read it; I may be conflating memories.
- buckminster 9y ago
  US copyright terms were not merely brought into line with the rest of the world. Work-for-hire copyright is 95 years in the US. It is at most 70 years elsewhere.
- mncharity 9y ago
  > the 1976 Act had very little opposition In the late 1980's, I talked with one of the government-side principals of the 1976 Act. They were at pains to explain that the Act should be viewed not as a failure, but as a success - a successful act of public policy damage control. Because you should have seen all the crazy [bleep] [Disney/Hollywood] wanted. It seems I've been seeing a "oh, 1976 was just Berne, and Berne was no big deal" narrative more often of late. Perhaps as Disney spins up for extension-next. Which isn't to say that some people don't honestly believe that narrative. Hollywood doing filter-bubble groupthink on copyright law has long been part of the picture. The angry public denunciations after SOPA, of a dishonest tech industry buying corrupt congressmen, was particularly striking. But after all, when everyone you know agrees that something is a great thing, anyone who opposes it can only be a bad actor.
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    > anyone who opposes it can only be a bad actor. Are you saying Holloywood doesn't know what is and is not a bad actor? Who would have thought it!

tzs 9y ago

That's not really accurate. According to your link, Disney copyrights have been extended twice. The first was with the Copyright Act of 1976. The main purposes of the 1976 Act were to update US copyright law to better conform to the Universal Copyright Convention and to prepare for the US to later join the Berne Convention; to update it to take into account new technology developed since the 1909 Act such as television, movies, radio, and sound recordings; and to codify various doctrines from case law include fair use. The copyright extension in the 1976 Act was a side effect of changing terms to match those of Berne countries. As far as I've been able to tell, the 1976 Act had very little opposition. Disney almost certainly was in favor of it, but I've found no evidence that they had any particular influence in drafting it or getting it passed, or even spent any lobbying money on it. There was no need for them to do so. Disney did lobby for the 1998 extension (as did most major content creators), which extended US copyright terms to match those of Europe. I don't know how Disney successfully lobbying once (as part of a large group) for a copyright extension turned into the internet myth that they have constantly been getting copyright extensions.

Tomte 9y ago
Lawrence Lessig claimed so. See the Free Culture presentation. He makes it look as all these copyright extensions (centuries back, to the Statute of Anne) were Disney‘s doing. That was highly influential. Lessig is a very gifted speaker.
bsimpson 9y ago
I feel like Lessig painted copyright extension as an abuse of Disney's lobbyists in Free Culture, but it's been more than a decade since I've read it; I may be conflating memories.
buckminster 9y ago
US copyright terms were not merely brought into line with the rest of the world. Work-for-hire copyright is 95 years in the US. It is at most 70 years elsewhere.
mncharity 9y ago
> the 1976 Act had very little opposition In the late 1980's, I talked with one of the government-side principals of the 1976 Act. They were at pains to explain that the Act should be viewed not as a failure, but as a success - a successful act of public policy damage control. Because you should have seen all the crazy [bleep] [Disney/Hollywood] wanted. It seems I've been seeing a "oh, 1976 was just Berne, and Berne was no big deal" narrative more often of late. Perhaps as Disney spins up for extension-next. Which isn't to say that some people don't honestly believe that narrative. Hollywood doing filter-bubble groupthink on copyright law has long been part of the picture. The angry public denunciations after SOPA, of a dishonest tech industry buying corrupt congressmen, was particularly striking. But after all, when everyone you know agrees that something is a great thing, anyone who opposes it can only be a bad actor.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  > anyone who opposes it can only be a bad actor. Are you saying Holloywood doesn't know what is and is not a bad actor? Who would have thought it!