4 ms·

I guess we know where their priorities lie. I mean, for years, republicans have championed corporate-friendly agendas like privatization of public resources and

I guess we know where their priorities lie. I mean, for years, republicans have championed corporate-friendly agendas like privatization of public resources and copyright maximalism, and now they are willing to undo it in order to stick it to LGBT& folks.

nyokodo 4y ago
> for years, republicans have championed corporate-friendly agendas The Republicans used to be the party of big business but that stopped being true around 2016. They’re now squarely populist which is why you’ve noticed a change in behavior. However, it’s not that anti-woke is more important than big business it’s that big business isn’t a constituency of the populists in the first place.
- cafard 4y ago
  2016: Have you looked at the Trump cabinet? It sure looks like big business to me.
smoldesu 4y ago
I don't know why this has to be polarized, of all things. There's nothing crazy about people coming to an agreement on copyright limitations. Hell, even if this was a contrived revenge plot, I don't think it detracts from it's legitimacy. IP legislation is insane and everyone knows it, Disney won't catch any empathy from me for virtue-signalling to distract from systematic exploitation.
- MBCook 4y ago
  Normally you’d be right. But in this case it only seems to be in progress because one party got mad at Disney and is now just looking for ways to hurt Disney’s interests in revenge. If a the school bully beats up a kid who torments you for a terribly unfair reason… should you root for them?
  - xkcd-sucks 4y ago
    "A thief robs a thief, and God smiles" or whatever it is It would be pearl-clutchingly terrible if 50+1% of the country/state thought a cabal of (gays, nazis, woke commies, abortionists, pedophiles, etc.) were in the NSA using surveillance tech + weak encryption to accomplish their goals
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      no it wouldn’t be, because they don’t stop after they do that
    - spacemanmatt 4y ago
      Have you met Qanon?
- gamblor956 4y ago
  If this bill becomes law, it means that Congress now has the power to target specific individuals and companies with legislative acts. That is quite literally facism.
  - nickff 4y ago
    Congress has a long history of targeting specific companies and groups, such as United Aircraft and Transport. https://www.historylink.org/file/5368 https://www.historylink.org/file/5368
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      Your example clearly shows that Congress passed a general antitrust law that applied both to Boeing (at the time) and all other companies since that law was passed: a law specifically prohibiting monopolist control of air delivery services by companies that also manufactured the planes used in those delivery services. Note that parts of this law are still in effect today. This law under discussion would only apply to Disney, and could only ever apply to Disney.
      - ledauphin 4y ago
        can you clarify how this law would only apply to Disney? Somehow I missed that in the article.
        gamblor956 4y ago
        The bill is limited to companies which are both in the movie production and amusement park industries (Disney and Universal) which have over $150 billion in market capitalization (only Disney, as of May 2022, though NBCUniversal was over $150 billion in April). However, only Disney has copyrights which would be expired by this law due to the retroactive termination of copyright periods and extensions.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    > That is quite literally facism. Of course it's not. Governments make legislation to deal with specific organisations or individuals all the time; it's pretty normal. I would go so far to say this is "quite literally" the entire job of the legislative branch: respond to problems as they develop with new laws. This specific act and pissing match with Disney is of course petty beyond belief, but that's a different matter.
- toast0 4y ago
  Reducing the term of copyrights is something I support, but it's pretty gross if it's done for revenge. It feels capricious, and like copyright might be extended again later in order to extract revenge against someone else. Plus, who knows if it will be well drafted and all that. The article suggests it would be retroactive, which is rarely a sign of fair legislation, IMHO; of course, the same was true of the term extension, but I don't think that necessarily justifies making the change back in the same way; especially for works that were created with an originally long copyright term.

nyokodo 4y ago

> for years, republicans have championed corporate-friendly agendas The Republicans used to be the party of big business but that stopped being true around 2016. They’re now squarely populist which is why you’ve noticed a change in behavior. However, it’s not that anti-woke is more important than big business it’s that big business isn’t a constituency of the populists in the first place.

cafard 4y ago
2016: Have you looked at the Trump cabinet? It sure looks like big business to me.

smoldesu 4y ago

I don't know why this has to be polarized, of all things. There's nothing crazy about people coming to an agreement on copyright limitations. Hell, even if this was a contrived revenge plot, I don't think it detracts from it's legitimacy. IP legislation is insane and everyone knows it, Disney won't catch any empathy from me for virtue-signalling to distract from systematic exploitation.

MBCook 4y ago
Normally you’d be right. But in this case it only seems to be in progress because one party got mad at Disney and is now just looking for ways to hurt Disney’s interests in revenge. If a the school bully beats up a kid who torments you for a terribly unfair reason… should you root for them?
- xkcd-sucks 4y ago
  "A thief robs a thief, and God smiles" or whatever it is It would be pearl-clutchingly terrible if 50+1% of the country/state thought a cabal of (gays, nazis, woke commies, abortionists, pedophiles, etc.) were in the NSA using surveillance tech + weak encryption to accomplish their goals
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    no it wouldn’t be, because they don’t stop after they do that
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    Have you met Qanon?
gamblor956 4y ago
If this bill becomes law, it means that Congress now has the power to target specific individuals and companies with legislative acts. That is quite literally facism.
- nickff 4y ago
  Congress has a long history of targeting specific companies and groups, such as United Aircraft and Transport. https://www.historylink.org/file/5368 https://www.historylink.org/file/5368
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Your example clearly shows that Congress passed a general antitrust law that applied both to Boeing (at the time) and all other companies since that law was passed: a law specifically prohibiting monopolist control of air delivery services by companies that also manufactured the planes used in those delivery services. Note that parts of this law are still in effect today. This law under discussion would only apply to Disney, and could only ever apply to Disney.
    - ledauphin 4y ago
      can you clarify how this law would only apply to Disney? Somehow I missed that in the article.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        The bill is limited to companies which are both in the movie production and amusement park industries (Disney and Universal) which have over $150 billion in market capitalization (only Disney, as of May 2022, though NBCUniversal was over $150 billion in April). However, only Disney has copyrights which would be expired by this law due to the retroactive termination of copyright periods and extensions.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  > That is quite literally facism. Of course it's not. Governments make legislation to deal with specific organisations or individuals all the time; it's pretty normal. I would go so far to say this is "quite literally" the entire job of the legislative branch: respond to problems as they develop with new laws. This specific act and pissing match with Disney is of course petty beyond belief, but that's a different matter.
toast0 4y ago
Reducing the term of copyrights is something I support, but it's pretty gross if it's done for revenge. It feels capricious, and like copyright might be extended again later in order to extract revenge against someone else. Plus, who knows if it will be well drafted and all that. The article suggests it would be retroactive, which is rarely a sign of fair legislation, IMHO; of course, the same was true of the term extension, but I don't think that necessarily justifies making the change back in the same way; especially for works that were created with an originally long copyright term.