6 ms·

I love the precedent that Disney is setting here. Will be a little harder for them to argue against my Tweet next month: "Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks

I love the precedent that Disney is setting here. Will be a little harder for them to argue against my Tweet next month: "Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made the day special. By replying to this Tweet, Disney Corp. hereby agrees to abide by the copyright laws in place as of the release dates of its motion pictures, instead of the longer dates obtained through perversion of the legal system by Disney and its lobbyists." In all seriousness, I'm sure Disney never thinks for a moment that the law would ever be applied fairly to them or that this tweet could come back to bite them.

coffeevradar 7y ago
Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversion.
- sarakayakomzin 7y ago
  > Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act the Mickey Mouse Protection Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication >There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You In February 2010, the royalty for a single use was US$700 It's pretty hard to tell if you're arguing in bad faith or just unaware of the reality of the situation. >essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. is it arbitrary? does someone really need to profit off something 70 years after they have died?
- alextheparrot 7y ago
  Some would argue that the undefined duration does not match “limited times” and that the copyright is no longer “promoting useful arts”. While some of these questions have been answered in Disney’s favour in recent times, it is clear that the “matter of law” is anything but clear.
  - cookiecaper 7y ago
    This was adjudicated up to the Supreme Court: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 tl;dr: 7-2 as long as there is some type of time limitation, Congress is free to extend copyright terms.
    - henrikschroder 7y ago
      Cool, so why not set the limit to the heat-death of the universe and be done with it?
      - cookiecaper 7y ago
        > Cool, so why not set the limit to the heat-death of the universe and be done with it? Presumably SCOTUS would say that an effectively-infinite timeline is not "limited" within the Constitutional definition of the word. Eldred v. Ashcroft basically tried to argue that continual decades-long extensions amounted to this, but the Court was not convinced.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      The supreme court agreeing on something is a solid piece of evidence that something is correct, but it's very far from ironclad. Especially when it's not unanimous.
    - cthor 7y ago
      Eldred vs Ashcroft held that the CTEA (Sony Bono act) was constitutional. This is a good point worth bringing up, since the GP seems to imply it isn't with reference to the wording of the constitution's Copyright Clause. However, it doesn't answer the moral question of whether congress should have passed that law, or whether congress should pass laws to change copyright term lengths to be shorter. That's not the role of the court.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  > There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. The public did not benefit in any way from its extension. Quite the opposite: every time the duration of copyright terms is extended, the public is robbed of its rights so that corporations which have already made billions off of their copyrighted works can make even more money. When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain? Probably the early 20th century. When people think public domain, what comes to mind is renaissance art and classical music. The truth is everything created in the 80s and before should already be in the public domain and that's very generous, more than enough time for companies to get rich off of their creations. The original social contract behind copyright was "we'll pretend your intellectual work is scarce for some time so you can profit and then it will enter the public domain". Works aren't entering the public domain because every time Mickey Mouse is about to become public property Disney spends millions lobbying the government in order to extend the copyright duration. Copyright is effectively infinite despite what the law says. So why should the public recognize copyright as legitimate to begin with?
  - kenned3 7y ago
    This! Disney has morphed copywrite without any input from the public. What sort of contract is valid if only one party changes the terms and the other never agreed to it?
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    I'm not a fan of copyright law, so don't take this limited factual response as an attempt at a general refutation of your points. >When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain? January 1st, 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_public_domain
    - RonanTheGrey 7y ago
      So, things made about 100 years ago are finally making it into the public domain.. I don't know.. I mean yeah, but something strikes me as really wrong about that.
dnautics 7y ago
why not go nuclear? "Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made that day special. By replying or retweeting this Tweet, Walt Disney Corp. hereby agrees in perpetuity to sell to the owner of this twitter account for $1, per motion picture, an unlimited, license for any purpose."
- cookiengineer 7y ago
  Why not go pandemic? > Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made that day special. > By retweeting or mentioning this tweet, Disney agrees to grant every natural person that likes this tweet unlimited redistribution rights and has to pay each liking twitter account 1000 EUR per month per unique click.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    well you do want a small chance the judge will side with you.
    - ptero 7y ago
      In practical terms both versions likely have zero chance of success. Sadly. Although scientifically speaking, the rounding off error of your original formulation is bigger :)
      - touristtam 7y ago
        Better trying to find another E-Corp willing to do the same and stack both against each other.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Even if copyright law wasn't perpetually extended for Disney, it would likely change little. People want original Disney movies, theme park experiences, etc. That's part of "the magic". Plus, Disney has many works that aren't anywhere near entering the public domain. They seem to have positioned themself for the situation where the extensions do not continue.
notechback 7y ago
Ironically one of the things the 1886 convention was intended to counter was publishers printing works without permission. It was about AUTHOR'S rights. In subsequent versions this has been transformed in something very different. Copyright was not always as it is today.
- Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
  Copyright was first and foremost created to reinforce censorship, which tends to collapse when the means of (re-)producing "creative works" become cheaply available to the masses. It is older then liberalism: the right to copy a work was a right of the publishers given to them by the monarch, with the intent to limit who can publish what and under the threat of violence when disobeyed. Transforming this "copy-right" from a right given by the monarch to a right given by the authors was a key event on the way of Liberalism replacing Monarchism and changing all common law to be based on human rights. One should notice that this "exclusive right to copy" restricts the right to use such "intellectual property", which is why Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive must be opposed unless, at least, fair use is granted. Early modern copyright was even more restrictive: its intent was to restructure what became an uncontrollable market: having authors license their works exclusively to some large publishers starved the small presses and ensured a controllable elite that would not dare to print seditious materials. Owning an unregistered printing press was illegal under the threat of violence. It is naive to belief the primary intent was to prevent harm to the income of the authors. Until today the right to copy is mostly a right of the publishers. Authors sign it away and consumers do not get it.
henryfjordan 7y ago
I mean, why wouldn't you be able to form a contract through tweets? You can form a contract through any medium you want, especially just to give permission to Disney to use your tweet. I don't think Disney is setting any precedent or anything else weird by saying "send us messages you want us to publish, by the way here are the specific terms we want to use" on Twitter, they've been doing that for a long time before twitter even existed. Think about America's Funniest Home Videos, they did exactly this for decades but over TV. Your tweet fails to give Disney any "consideration" so it's not going to be a valid contract and not because it's in a tweet. Offer them clearer terms and a dollar and then maybe you'd have a point. Right now they offer you a chance to see your tweet in some marketing materials, better than nothing right? Lastly, this is incredibly specifically scoped. Does anyone tweeting "Love the new movie #MayTheFourth @Disney" really expect Disney not to want to use it? They are going to have someone review the tweets before they use them. How could this possibly come back to bite Disney?
- snickerbockers 7y ago
  Disney probably does have implicit permission from anybody who tags them and uses that hashtag to use their quotes for a social media project, since Twitter is generally considered to be a forum for public discourse. This might also be enshrined in Twitter's ToS. That's not the problem. The problem is that they claim that anybody who tweets at them and uses their hashtag is entering into a contract agreement with the Walt Disney Corporation, which can be found at https://disneytermsofuse.com/ https://disneytermsofuse.com/ . This is ridiculous because nobody needs Disney's permission to use Twitter. If somebody were to use Twitter to express to Disney a desire to enter into a contract that might be valid, but Disney can't unilaterally declare that anybody who sends a communication to them over a given medium is unconditionally agreeing to be bound by their terms of use.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    Unilateral contracts are a thing, when one party makes an offer that is only accepted by performance. As the offeror, Disney can invite acceptance of their contract however they want, including via replying to their tweet with a special hashtag. They made the requirements pretty clear and stringent enough that I very much doubt anyone is at risk of accidentally entering into that contract, but if that does happen, then the contract would be null. I just don't see that happening though.
Zenst 7y ago
Certainly with some companies with Bot's - this would get very interesting indeed. Dear @{company} by replying to this tweet you agree.........
elliekelly 7y ago
This reminds me of the Russian gentleman who received an offer for a new credit card but didn’t like the fine print. So he changed it. And mailed the contract back to the bank who... didn’t read the fine print and accepted the terms. When he sued the bank to enforce his contract for a no-fee account with an unlimited line of credit at 0% interest he won. Fortunately for the bank he was prudent in his spending despite his access to unlimited funds so he hadn’t racked up much of a bill. Story here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-small-print-credit-card-user-sets-his-own-limit-then-sues-bank-for-closing-account-8753602.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-sma...
- justanotherc 7y ago
  Except he didn't win. I believe he lost in appeal as it was deemed he acted in "bad faith".
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    It seems the case was eventually settled[1] for an undisclosed sum. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkoff_Bank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkoff_Bank

coffeevradar 7y ago

Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversion.

sarakayakomzin 7y ago
> Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act the Mickey Mouse Protection Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication >There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You In February 2010, the royalty for a single use was US$700 It's pretty hard to tell if you're arguing in bad faith or just unaware of the reality of the situation. >essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. is it arbitrary? does someone really need to profit off something 70 years after they have died?
alextheparrot 7y ago
Some would argue that the undefined duration does not match “limited times” and that the copyright is no longer “promoting useful arts”. While some of these questions have been answered in Disney’s favour in recent times, it is clear that the “matter of law” is anything but clear.
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  This was adjudicated up to the Supreme Court: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 tl;dr: 7-2 as long as there is some type of time limitation, Congress is free to extend copyright terms.
  - henrikschroder 7y ago
    Cool, so why not set the limit to the heat-death of the universe and be done with it?
    - cookiecaper 7y ago
      > Cool, so why not set the limit to the heat-death of the universe and be done with it? Presumably SCOTUS would say that an effectively-infinite timeline is not "limited" within the Constitutional definition of the word. Eldred v. Ashcroft basically tried to argue that continual decades-long extensions amounted to this, but the Court was not convinced.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    The supreme court agreeing on something is a solid piece of evidence that something is correct, but it's very far from ironclad. Especially when it's not unanimous.
  - cthor 7y ago
    Eldred vs Ashcroft held that the CTEA (Sony Bono act) was constitutional. This is a good point worth bringing up, since the GP seems to imply it isn't with reference to the wording of the constitution's Copyright Clause. However, it doesn't answer the moral question of whether congress should have passed that law, or whether congress should pass laws to change copyright term lengths to be shorter. That's not the role of the court.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. The public did not benefit in any way from its extension. Quite the opposite: every time the duration of copyright terms is extended, the public is robbed of its rights so that corporations which have already made billions off of their copyrighted works can make even more money. When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain? Probably the early 20th century. When people think public domain, what comes to mind is renaissance art and classical music. The truth is everything created in the 80s and before should already be in the public domain and that's very generous, more than enough time for companies to get rich off of their creations. The original social contract behind copyright was "we'll pretend your intellectual work is scarce for some time so you can profit and then it will enter the public domain". Works aren't entering the public domain because every time Mickey Mouse is about to become public property Disney spends millions lobbying the government in order to extend the copyright duration. Copyright is effectively infinite despite what the law says. So why should the public recognize copyright as legitimate to begin with?
- kenned3 7y ago
  This! Disney has morphed copywrite without any input from the public. What sort of contract is valid if only one party changes the terms and the other never agreed to it?
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I'm not a fan of copyright law, so don't take this limited factual response as an attempt at a general refutation of your points. >When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain? January 1st, 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_public_domain
  - RonanTheGrey 7y ago
    So, things made about 100 years ago are finally making it into the public domain.. I don't know.. I mean yeah, but something strikes me as really wrong about that.

dnautics 7y ago

why not go nuclear? "Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made that day special. By replying or retweeting this Tweet, Walt Disney Corp. hereby agrees in perpetuity to sell to the owner of this twitter account for $1, per motion picture, an unlimited, license for any purpose."

cookiengineer 7y ago
Why not go pandemic? > Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made that day special. > By retweeting or mentioning this tweet, Disney agrees to grant every natural person that likes this tweet unlimited redistribution rights and has to pay each liking twitter account 1000 EUR per month per unique click.
- dnautics 7y ago
  well you do want a small chance the judge will side with you.
  - ptero 7y ago
    In practical terms both versions likely have zero chance of success. Sadly. Although scientifically speaking, the rounding off error of your original formulation is bigger :)
    - touristtam 7y ago
      Better trying to find another E-Corp willing to do the same and stack both against each other.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Even if copyright law wasn't perpetually extended for Disney, it would likely change little. People want original Disney movies, theme park experiences, etc. That's part of "the magic". Plus, Disney has many works that aren't anywhere near entering the public domain. They seem to have positioned themself for the situation where the extensions do not continue.

notechback 7y ago

Ironically one of the things the 1886 convention was intended to counter was publishers printing works without permission. It was about AUTHOR'S rights. In subsequent versions this has been transformed in something very different. Copyright was not always as it is today.

Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
Copyright was first and foremost created to reinforce censorship, which tends to collapse when the means of (re-)producing "creative works" become cheaply available to the masses. It is older then liberalism: the right to copy a work was a right of the publishers given to them by the monarch, with the intent to limit who can publish what and under the threat of violence when disobeyed. Transforming this "copy-right" from a right given by the monarch to a right given by the authors was a key event on the way of Liberalism replacing Monarchism and changing all common law to be based on human rights. One should notice that this "exclusive right to copy" restricts the right to use such "intellectual property", which is why Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive must be opposed unless, at least, fair use is granted. Early modern copyright was even more restrictive: its intent was to restructure what became an uncontrollable market: having authors license their works exclusively to some large publishers starved the small presses and ensured a controllable elite that would not dare to print seditious materials. Owning an unregistered printing press was illegal under the threat of violence. It is naive to belief the primary intent was to prevent harm to the income of the authors. Until today the right to copy is mostly a right of the publishers. Authors sign it away and consumers do not get it.

henryfjordan 7y ago

I mean, why wouldn't you be able to form a contract through tweets? You can form a contract through any medium you want, especially just to give permission to Disney to use your tweet. I don't think Disney is setting any precedent or anything else weird by saying "send us messages you want us to publish, by the way here are the specific terms we want to use" on Twitter, they've been doing that for a long time before twitter even existed. Think about America's Funniest Home Videos, they did exactly this for decades but over TV. Your tweet fails to give Disney any "consideration" so it's not going to be a valid contract and not because it's in a tweet. Offer them clearer terms and a dollar and then maybe you'd have a point. Right now they offer you a chance to see your tweet in some marketing materials, better than nothing right? Lastly, this is incredibly specifically scoped. Does anyone tweeting "Love the new movie #MayTheFourth @Disney" really expect Disney not to want to use it? They are going to have someone review the tweets before they use them. How could this possibly come back to bite Disney?

snickerbockers 7y ago
Disney probably does have implicit permission from anybody who tags them and uses that hashtag to use their quotes for a social media project, since Twitter is generally considered to be a forum for public discourse. This might also be enshrined in Twitter's ToS. That's not the problem. The problem is that they claim that anybody who tweets at them and uses their hashtag is entering into a contract agreement with the Walt Disney Corporation, which can be found at https://disneytermsofuse.com/ https://disneytermsofuse.com/ . This is ridiculous because nobody needs Disney's permission to use Twitter. If somebody were to use Twitter to express to Disney a desire to enter into a contract that might be valid, but Disney can't unilaterally declare that anybody who sends a communication to them over a given medium is unconditionally agreeing to be bound by their terms of use.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  Unilateral contracts are a thing, when one party makes an offer that is only accepted by performance. As the offeror, Disney can invite acceptance of their contract however they want, including via replying to their tweet with a special hashtag. They made the requirements pretty clear and stringent enough that I very much doubt anyone is at risk of accidentally entering into that contract, but if that does happen, then the contract would be null. I just don't see that happening though.

Zenst 7y ago

Certainly with some companies with Bot's - this would get very interesting indeed. Dear @{company} by replying to this tweet you agree.........

elliekelly 7y ago

This reminds me of the Russian gentleman who received an offer for a new credit card but didn’t like the fine print. So he changed it. And mailed the contract back to the bank who... didn’t read the fine print and accepted the terms. When he sued the bank to enforce his contract for a no-fee account with an unlimited line of credit at 0% interest he won. Fortunately for the bank he was prudent in his spending despite his access to unlimited funds so he hadn’t racked up much of a bill. Story here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-small-print-credit-card-user-sets-his-own-limit-then-sues-bank-for-closing-account-8753602.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-sma...

justanotherc 7y ago
Except he didn't win. I believe he lost in appeal as it was deemed he acted in "bad faith".
- elliekelly 7y ago
  It seems the case was eventually settled[1] for an undisclosed sum. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkoff_Bank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkoff_Bank