39 ms·

If not for Disney (and other entertainment megacorporations, but mostly Disney) pushing for vastly extended copyright, this would have been in the public domain

If not for Disney (and other entertainment megacorporations, but mostly Disney) pushing for vastly extended copyright, this would have been in the public domain around 1995 and you could have your own copy to play any time you like without any fear of getting in trouble. Anyone could broadcast it, as well.

6stringmerc 6y ago
The Mickey Mouse curve is one of the most rotten legal decisions since Napster's ruling that "copying files and sharing them is not equal to copying cassette tapes and sharing them" in my lifetime.
- tptacek 6y ago
  At no point in my entire life has modern or popular music been more available than it is now. I haven't "bought an album" in over a decade, because virtually everything is instantly available at no additional charge beyond the one simple service I subscribe to. Short of all recorded content being de facto uncompensated, which is what the logical conclusion of Napster winning would have been, it's hard to see an outcome here that would be better for consumers than the one we have. I suspect we'll be in a similar position with video content in 10 years as well. Already, I think it's easy to make the case that we're better off than we were in the status quo ante of cable bundles and video rentals.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    As the opportunity to purchase physical or non-streaming versions of content dry up consumers will be forced into subscription services. There won't be a non-recurring-payment option for consumers who don't necessarily want new media. I don't know what the size of that market segment is, but the subscription-based streaming-only future isn't a "win" for them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - TylerE 6y ago
      Speak for yourself. I could subscribe to 3 or 4 premium streaming services and be spending less than I was on CDs 20 years ago. Don't have to spend hours ripping them all, either.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - listenallyall 6y ago
        ...except unlike those CDs, the moment you unsubscribe, you'll lose access to everything.
        tptacek 6y ago
        And then you'll sign up for the competing service that has for all intents and purposes the same catalog, and get access to everything once again. If you're, I guess, weird, you can just buy CDs the way we did in 1998. They're all still available! The bands would really like you to buy them! I'm genuinely not sure what the complaint is here. It seems to be that super-cheap, super-convenient music is available in addition to the CDs we were buying instead?
        listenallyall 6y ago
        I think it's weird to be excited about being beholden to some big, faceless company that charges you a monthly fee AND sells personal data about you AND which you know your favorite artists secretly despise. Also kind of weird to be music-less when not connected to the internet or if you don't have a specific app installed. But you do you, man.
        dageshi 6y ago
        The excitement comes from not having to manage "stuff". Don't need to store/manage/catalogue/find anything physical. Don't need to store/manage/backup/catalogue anything digital either, just search for what you want in the app and play. If collecting is part of the fun for you then go for it, but there's a whole lot of people for whom the collecting stuff isn't fun it's just unnecessary work.
  - coldpie 6y ago
    I'm not so concerned with access to the originals as I am with the restriction of derivative works. Look back through human history and you'll find people retelling and adapting stories and songs freely. With our effectively-infinite copyright length, we've now locked our shared culture behind Disney's lawyers. That sucks.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      I am unclear on how trademark interacts with copyright on this. Unlike copyright, trademarks really were intended to be infinite: they expire only when people stop using them (and paying the relevant fees). So even if Steamboat Willie were to become public domain, would trademark limit the derivative works that could be made? The movie might be public, but the main character isn't. Can you tell me how that would work?
    - hylaride 6y ago
      This so much. When I first learned about how US copyright laws were extended (and then pushed on the rest of the world via trade deals, etc), my respect for IP rules plummeted. In college I had no qualms using Napster, and later bitorrent, etc. Even today, I get frustrated by geo-ip blocking (I'm Canadian) and I have no idea how I'm going to watch the Animaniacs reboot (Hulu isn't available here). Even worse, a lot of content gets licenced to Canadian media companies which then (if I legally want to) force me to watch through terrible apps with terrible commercial interruptions at bad times. The last movie I tried to legally watch via that last method has 20 minutes of commercials for every hour of the film. I pay for Netflix and Apple music because they're affordable and extremely convenient, but get in my way and I'll have no qualms finding a better way.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        That's great and all, but has nothing to do with the fact that the Charlie Brown Halloween Special will be on Apple TV and not network TV. It's always been the case that nerds can watch pretty much whatever they want by ignoring copyright and just downloading stuff. It was that way all the way into the streaming wars. Streaming services aren't spending hundreds of millions of dollars on content catalogs because they're worried that you're going to upend their business with torrent sites.
- TylerE 6y ago
  > copying files and sharing them is not equal to copying cassette tapes and sharing them It isn't. Cassettes are VERY lossy copies. It's like saving a jpg of a jpg of a jpg of a...
vmception 6y ago
Disney didn't push for copyright extensions during this congressional session specifically because of the heightened awareness of them doing it last time. There are lots of laws the public doesn't care about and all you have to do is get the legislature to "not disagree", after you get your pet project out of committee. So as long as people don't notice, you can get pretty much anything passed in the US. It works even better when all the well funded special interests hilariously decided to move to the far fringe edges of their respective parties and will never get consensus. Lowers the barrier for consensus for the rest of us since most of Congress is just waiting for things that can have bi-partisan support. Been a fun and cheaper than usual few years for me.......
- tptacek 6y ago
  Disney didn't push for copyright extensions this session because absolutely nothing was going to get done this session. The idea that the median voters cares even a whit about copyright extension is one you'll have to bring evidence to support. It seems unlikely to be true.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Yes, only 182 bills have been enacted this session, which is very low. You'd be surprised what you can squeeze into a budget reconciliation bill if you care enough, the government has to reopen eventually. Honestly, enough people just don't. But you can.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Can what? Care about precisely which 75+ year old movies I can watch without paying $2 for the privilege? What makes you think this could ever be a serious motivating issue for the electorate?
      - vmception 6y ago
        you can squeeze any law into other laws, they are called riders. in some cases the barrier of entry is extremely low because the host-bill is required to open the government or something very time sensitive. the point is that the electorate doesn't care and you don't want them to.
aaron695 6y ago
The reason it had it's value was is scarcity. A traditional special. You are suggesting putting up Xmas decorations in October is a good thing. But ignoring that, why not create something new? Are all our artists to busy with work?
tptacek 6y ago
Under pre-Sonny Bono copyright terms, this special wouldn't have been available until 2040. Someone downthread pointed out that under 1909 copyright terms, it wouldn't be public domain until 2022; Disney wouldn't have even been founded for another 14 years. So, no, this doesn't seem at all accurate.
- tzs 6y ago
  For those who want to know where those numbers from from. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, it was 28 years which could be renewed for another 28 years, giving a total of 56 years. The work was first published in 1966, giving 1966 + 56 = 2022. The Copyright Act of 1976, the term became life of the author + 50 years for non-corporate works, and 75 years after first publication for corporate works. For works from before 1976 there were still under copyright, it was sort of retroactive. I say "sort of" because instead of simple saying those simply got the new term, keeping their original start date, it changed their renewal term from 28 years to 47 years, which gives 75 years. Works that were still in the first term would still have to renew to get that 47 year renewal term. Anyway, 1966 + 28 + 47 = 2041. (Yes, I know that is not 2040. No, I don't know why not. (Well, I know why 1966 + 28 + 47 is not 2040...)). The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (which, BTW, is the only copyright term extension in the US that Disney lobbying might have actually influenced [1]) changed the term for corporate works to be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is earlier. 1966 + 95 = 2061. [1] There have only been two copyright term extensions in the US since Disney was founded. I haven't been able to find anything on where they stood on the 1976 Act or if they did any lobbying for it. Of course they were in favor of it--but so was nearly everyone else. It made the US system much more compatible with the rest of the world, paving the way for the US to join the Berne Convention.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    "It's a wonderful life" was released under 1909 rules. It came out in 1946, so was copyrighted until 1974. The owners (RKO) didn't renew the copyright, as it was a failed film, it was well before home video, so why bother I guess. Thus in 1974 is became public domain, and all the networks could play it as many times as they wanted with no cost, and did so - making it a very popular film in the American cultural zeitgeist. In 1993 this was all undone though, and now only the owner (which is NBC) is allowed to show the classic film, because it was based on a story that is copyrighted (and NBC acquired the copyright) Copyright length are ridiculous. Any implication (we need copyright otherwise people won't create) that Philip Van Doren Stern wrote his story in 1943 because he felt he could capitalize on the rights of a derivative film in the cable tv and streaming era is laughable.
liveoneggs 6y ago
I paid a small amount of money a few years ago and have a blueray copy

6stringmerc 6y ago

The Mickey Mouse curve is one of the most rotten legal decisions since Napster's ruling that "copying files and sharing them is not equal to copying cassette tapes and sharing them" in my lifetime.

tptacek 6y ago
At no point in my entire life has modern or popular music been more available than it is now. I haven't "bought an album" in over a decade, because virtually everything is instantly available at no additional charge beyond the one simple service I subscribe to. Short of all recorded content being de facto uncompensated, which is what the logical conclusion of Napster winning would have been, it's hard to see an outcome here that would be better for consumers than the one we have. I suspect we'll be in a similar position with video content in 10 years as well. Already, I think it's easy to make the case that we're better off than we were in the status quo ante of cable bundles and video rentals.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  As the opportunity to purchase physical or non-streaming versions of content dry up consumers will be forced into subscription services. There won't be a non-recurring-payment option for consumers who don't necessarily want new media. I don't know what the size of that market segment is, but the subscription-based streaming-only future isn't a "win" for them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - TylerE 6y ago
    Speak for yourself. I could subscribe to 3 or 4 premium streaming services and be spending less than I was on CDs 20 years ago. Don't have to spend hours ripping them all, either.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - listenallyall 6y ago
      ...except unlike those CDs, the moment you unsubscribe, you'll lose access to everything.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        And then you'll sign up for the competing service that has for all intents and purposes the same catalog, and get access to everything once again. If you're, I guess, weird, you can just buy CDs the way we did in 1998. They're all still available! The bands would really like you to buy them! I'm genuinely not sure what the complaint is here. It seems to be that super-cheap, super-convenient music is available in addition to the CDs we were buying instead?
        listenallyall 6y ago
        I think it's weird to be excited about being beholden to some big, faceless company that charges you a monthly fee AND sells personal data about you AND which you know your favorite artists secretly despise. Also kind of weird to be music-less when not connected to the internet or if you don't have a specific app installed. But you do you, man.
        dageshi 6y ago
        The excitement comes from not having to manage "stuff". Don't need to store/manage/catalogue/find anything physical. Don't need to store/manage/backup/catalogue anything digital either, just search for what you want in the app and play. If collecting is part of the fun for you then go for it, but there's a whole lot of people for whom the collecting stuff isn't fun it's just unnecessary work.
- coldpie 6y ago
  I'm not so concerned with access to the originals as I am with the restriction of derivative works. Look back through human history and you'll find people retelling and adapting stories and songs freely. With our effectively-infinite copyright length, we've now locked our shared culture behind Disney's lawyers. That sucks.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    I am unclear on how trademark interacts with copyright on this. Unlike copyright, trademarks really were intended to be infinite: they expire only when people stop using them (and paying the relevant fees). So even if Steamboat Willie were to become public domain, would trademark limit the derivative works that could be made? The movie might be public, but the main character isn't. Can you tell me how that would work?
  - hylaride 6y ago
    This so much. When I first learned about how US copyright laws were extended (and then pushed on the rest of the world via trade deals, etc), my respect for IP rules plummeted. In college I had no qualms using Napster, and later bitorrent, etc. Even today, I get frustrated by geo-ip blocking (I'm Canadian) and I have no idea how I'm going to watch the Animaniacs reboot (Hulu isn't available here). Even worse, a lot of content gets licenced to Canadian media companies which then (if I legally want to) force me to watch through terrible apps with terrible commercial interruptions at bad times. The last movie I tried to legally watch via that last method has 20 minutes of commercials for every hour of the film. I pay for Netflix and Apple music because they're affordable and extremely convenient, but get in my way and I'll have no qualms finding a better way.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      That's great and all, but has nothing to do with the fact that the Charlie Brown Halloween Special will be on Apple TV and not network TV. It's always been the case that nerds can watch pretty much whatever they want by ignoring copyright and just downloading stuff. It was that way all the way into the streaming wars. Streaming services aren't spending hundreds of millions of dollars on content catalogs because they're worried that you're going to upend their business with torrent sites.
TylerE 6y ago
> copying files and sharing them is not equal to copying cassette tapes and sharing them It isn't. Cassettes are VERY lossy copies. It's like saving a jpg of a jpg of a jpg of a...

vmception 6y ago

Disney didn't push for copyright extensions during this congressional session specifically because of the heightened awareness of them doing it last time. There are lots of laws the public doesn't care about and all you have to do is get the legislature to "not disagree", after you get your pet project out of committee. So as long as people don't notice, you can get pretty much anything passed in the US. It works even better when all the well funded special interests hilariously decided to move to the far fringe edges of their respective parties and will never get consensus. Lowers the barrier for consensus for the rest of us since most of Congress is just waiting for things that can have bi-partisan support. Been a fun and cheaper than usual few years for me.......

tptacek 6y ago
Disney didn't push for copyright extensions this session because absolutely nothing was going to get done this session. The idea that the median voters cares even a whit about copyright extension is one you'll have to bring evidence to support. It seems unlikely to be true.
- vmception 6y ago
  Yes, only 182 bills have been enacted this session, which is very low. You'd be surprised what you can squeeze into a budget reconciliation bill if you care enough, the government has to reopen eventually. Honestly, enough people just don't. But you can.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Can what? Care about precisely which 75+ year old movies I can watch without paying $2 for the privilege? What makes you think this could ever be a serious motivating issue for the electorate?
    - vmception 6y ago
      you can squeeze any law into other laws, they are called riders. in some cases the barrier of entry is extremely low because the host-bill is required to open the government or something very time sensitive. the point is that the electorate doesn't care and you don't want them to.

aaron695 6y ago

The reason it had it's value was is scarcity. A traditional special. You are suggesting putting up Xmas decorations in October is a good thing. But ignoring that, why not create something new? Are all our artists to busy with work?

tptacek 6y ago

Under pre-Sonny Bono copyright terms, this special wouldn't have been available until 2040. Someone downthread pointed out that under 1909 copyright terms, it wouldn't be public domain until 2022; Disney wouldn't have even been founded for another 14 years. So, no, this doesn't seem at all accurate.

tzs 6y ago
For those who want to know where those numbers from from. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, it was 28 years which could be renewed for another 28 years, giving a total of 56 years. The work was first published in 1966, giving 1966 + 56 = 2022. The Copyright Act of 1976, the term became life of the author + 50 years for non-corporate works, and 75 years after first publication for corporate works. For works from before 1976 there were still under copyright, it was sort of retroactive. I say "sort of" because instead of simple saying those simply got the new term, keeping their original start date, it changed their renewal term from 28 years to 47 years, which gives 75 years. Works that were still in the first term would still have to renew to get that 47 year renewal term. Anyway, 1966 + 28 + 47 = 2041. (Yes, I know that is not 2040. No, I don't know why not. (Well, I know why 1966 + 28 + 47 is not 2040...)). The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (which, BTW, is the only copyright term extension in the US that Disney lobbying might have actually influenced [1]) changed the term for corporate works to be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is earlier. 1966 + 95 = 2061. [1] There have only been two copyright term extensions in the US since Disney was founded. I haven't been able to find anything on where they stood on the 1976 Act or if they did any lobbying for it. Of course they were in favor of it--but so was nearly everyone else. It made the US system much more compatible with the rest of the world, paving the way for the US to join the Berne Convention.
- iso1631 6y ago
  "It's a wonderful life" was released under 1909 rules. It came out in 1946, so was copyrighted until 1974. The owners (RKO) didn't renew the copyright, as it was a failed film, it was well before home video, so why bother I guess. Thus in 1974 is became public domain, and all the networks could play it as many times as they wanted with no cost, and did so - making it a very popular film in the American cultural zeitgeist. In 1993 this was all undone though, and now only the owner (which is NBC) is allowed to show the classic film, because it was based on a story that is copyrighted (and NBC acquired the copyright) Copyright length are ridiculous. Any implication (we need copyright otherwise people won't create) that Philip Van Doren Stern wrote his story in 1943 because he felt he could capitalize on the rights of a derivative film in the cable tv and streaming era is laughable.

liveoneggs 6y ago

I paid a small amount of money a few years ago and have a blueray copy