3 ms·

Seems like the EU preceded the US in this copyright extension and the pressure was on the US to harmonize per terms of the Berne convention. I wonder why the EU

by pkaye 7y ago

Seems like the EU preceded the US in this copyright extension and the pressure was on the US to harmonize per terms of the Berne convention. I wonder why the EU increased the copyright terms Disney was the main lobbying force? > After the United States' accession to the Berne convention, a number of copyright owners successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress for another extension of the term of copyright, to provide for the same term of protection that exists in Europe. Since the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, member states of the European Union implemented protection for a term of the author's life plus seventy years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

lonelappde 7y ago
"Harmonization" is PR propaganda for corporate interests. "Harmonization" is a rachet that gives cover to corrupt politicians extending copyright for one nation under cover of another's action. It's also a sick irony that the word "harmonization" is used to mean "preventing music from being played".
incompatible 7y ago
The Berne convention doesn't go beyond lifetime + 50 years.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  The Berne convention means that the US must respect copyrights held by authors in other countries according to the copyright laws in those other countries. If authors in other countries get longer copyright protection, their works can be monetized longer, leading to a trade imbalance in IP. Countries with laws that offer shorter copyright protection will be incentivized to increase the duration of copyright protection as a result.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    No, I believe it means that the US must protect copyrights of qualifying foreign works under its own laws. This is lex loci protectionis. A foreign work may even be expired in its own country, but still protected in the US if the US provides longer terms. The US doesn't actually have to do that, but it hasn't implemented the "rule of the shorter term".
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      You are right. I misread it. These works that have recently entered the public domain in the US have already been in the public domain in some other countries.
      - incompatible 7y ago
        And the other way around: Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain is given as an example of a work that's now public domain under US law, but Mann died in 1955 and his works are copyrighted in the EU until 1 Jan, 2026.
freeflight 7y ago
> I wonder why the EU increased the copyright terms Disney was the main lobbying force? Some EU countries have pretty old and powerful copyright lobbies of their own, Germany is such an example with Springer and other big publishers. That's why Germany loves "ancillary copyrights" of all kinds, the one for press publishers [0], pressuring Google, was one that even went international. The same copyright interest holders were also responsible for establishing legal constructs like "auxiliary liability" [1], which ultimately led to the situation that most of the German language Internet needs to be moderated or else hosters make themselves liable for content posted by users [2]. So while Disney might be the biggest, and most visible, culprit, they are far from the only ones. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%B6rerhaftung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%B6rerhaftung [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forenhaftung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forenhaftung
Mindwipe 7y ago
> I wonder why the EU increased the copyright terms Disney was the main lobbying force? The EU increased their copyright terms mainly to harmonise them, and Germany won the argument that this harmonisation shouldn't make things any worse for their copyright owners, so it got harmonised at the length of Germany's existing duration which was life+70. Germany has a pretty strong publication copyright lobby of it's own. Americans on HN seem obsessed with Disney, but generally most international copyright extensions are due to unions working in the publishing and photography sectors much more than any corporations.

by pkaye 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago

"Harmonization" is PR propaganda for corporate interests. "Harmonization" is a rachet that gives cover to corrupt politicians extending copyright for one nation under cover of another's action. It's also a sick irony that the word "harmonization" is used to mean "preventing music from being played".

incompatible 7y ago

The Berne convention doesn't go beyond lifetime + 50 years.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
The Berne convention means that the US must respect copyrights held by authors in other countries according to the copyright laws in those other countries. If authors in other countries get longer copyright protection, their works can be monetized longer, leading to a trade imbalance in IP. Countries with laws that offer shorter copyright protection will be incentivized to increase the duration of copyright protection as a result.
- incompatible 7y ago
  No, I believe it means that the US must protect copyrights of qualifying foreign works under its own laws. This is lex loci protectionis. A foreign work may even be expired in its own country, but still protected in the US if the US provides longer terms. The US doesn't actually have to do that, but it hasn't implemented the "rule of the shorter term".
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    You are right. I misread it. These works that have recently entered the public domain in the US have already been in the public domain in some other countries.
    - incompatible 7y ago
      And the other way around: Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain is given as an example of a work that's now public domain under US law, but Mann died in 1955 and his works are copyrighted in the EU until 1 Jan, 2026.

freeflight 7y ago

> I wonder why the EU increased the copyright terms Disney was the main lobbying force? Some EU countries have pretty old and powerful copyright lobbies of their own, Germany is such an example with Springer and other big publishers. That's why Germany loves "ancillary copyrights" of all kinds, the one for press publishers [0], pressuring Google, was one that even went international. The same copyright interest holders were also responsible for establishing legal constructs like "auxiliary liability" [1], which ultimately led to the situation that most of the German language Internet needs to be moderated or else hosters make themselves liable for content posted by users [2]. So while Disney might be the biggest, and most visible, culprit, they are far from the only ones. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%B6rerhaftung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%B6rerhaftung [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forenhaftung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forenhaftung

Mindwipe 7y ago

> I wonder why the EU increased the copyright terms Disney was the main lobbying force? The EU increased their copyright terms mainly to harmonise them, and Germany won the argument that this harmonisation shouldn't make things any worse for their copyright owners, so it got harmonised at the length of Germany's existing duration which was life+70. Germany has a pretty strong publication copyright lobby of it's own. Americans on HN seem obsessed with Disney, but generally most international copyright extensions are due to unions working in the publishing and photography sectors much more than any corporations.