10 ms·

It's unrealistically optimistic to expect the government to do the right thing for the right reasons, so I'm more than willing to settle for doing the right thi

It's unrealistically optimistic to expect the government to do the right thing for the right reasons, so I'm more than willing to settle for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

klyrs 4y ago
I've been railing against Disney's power over copyright law for over 2 decades, but I'm still inclined to look this gift horse in the mouth. > Hawley, employing DeSantis’ playbook, said in a statement, "Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists." Is it okay for the government to enact targeted legislation to punish the exercise of legitimate political speech? I'm very wary of the precedent that's set by this. When the ends justify the means, the entire constitution goes out the window.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  Anything that kills the copyright law industry is a win for literally everyone.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    Except when it helps quislings like Hawley.
    - _carbyau_ 4y ago
      That's the thing though. How does it help Hawley to have copyright law curtailed, thus enabling even more free expression? Or does this law somehow only apply to Disney and no other copyright holding entity?
      - klyrs 4y ago
        The particulars don't help or harm Hawley. The value to him is in virtue signalling to his voter base. Not for any principled stance on free expression, but for fighting "wokeness."
        _carbyau_ 4y ago
        I mean, I guess he can spin any way he wants. He has branded Disney as a "for the woke" company. I am no "mouthpiece of the woke" but I thought the actual "woke" wanted lesser copyright years? And he's trying to deliver that. The best thing here is for the "woke" to loudly cheer him on in this - thus supporting what they want AND confusing the fanbase he thought he was targeting.
        spacemanmatt 4y ago
        It is no gain for anyone to cheer on Hawley. Any small gains made by accident though him are lost to his greater cynicism and general disregard for anyone except Hawley.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  It’s iffy. But considering Disney has been singled out for special privileges again and again, I don’t feel much pity. They’ve been using politics to increase their bottom line for decades.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > Is it okay for the government to enact targeted legislation to punish the exercise of legitimate political speech? It's not. This may be fresh legal ground, but it could be argued that it's a 1st amendment violation, if the law can be shown to be in retaliation* to speech, even if the law itself complies with the 1st amendment. (Mind that these are distinct questions: Is it OK, and is it legal. And even though I've answered that it's not okay, I still welcome the move. It's less not okay than perpetual copyright.) But I think accepting that argument would be even more perilous. If the motivation of legislators can be used to overturn otherwise constitutional laws, you're in a big mess. E.g. you could argue that an algorithmic transparency law violates the 1st amendment if it was motivated by Musk's purchase of Twitter. The other question is, does this set some kind of precedent - not legal, but of political norms. I'm not sure, but quite possibly yes. While there are plenty of examples of government harming or helping various entities depending on how in-favor they are, there may be a difference in kind here. *Extremely mild retaliation - I would be surprised if more than 1% of Disney's revenue can be attributed to works older than 50 years. Edit: Apparently the bill is more narrowly drafted than I thought, and would only apply to two companies in total. Laws this narrow supposedly have precedent to being illegal, according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334339 But it's an interesting question if to consider what the legal case would be if the law was a general reduction of copyright to ~50 years, for everyone.
  - atkailash 4y ago
  - klyrs 4y ago
    > it could be argued that it's a 1st amendment violation, if the law can be shown to be in retaliation* to speech I think that quote from my original post is pretty damning in that regard. He's openly declaring this as an attack on their bottom line because of clearly protected speech that he finds odious. > But it's an interesting question if to consider what the legal case would be if the law was a general reduction of copyright to ~50 years, for everyone. See, that's something I'd get behind!

It's unrealistically optimistic to expect the government to do the right thing for the right reasons, so I'm more than willing to settle for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

klyrs 4y ago

I've been railing against Disney's power over copyright law for over 2 decades, but I'm still inclined to look this gift horse in the mouth. > Hawley, employing DeSantis’ playbook, said in a statement, "Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists." Is it okay for the government to enact targeted legislation to punish the exercise of legitimate political speech? I'm very wary of the precedent that's set by this. When the ends justify the means, the entire constitution goes out the window.

sieabahlpark 4y ago
Anything that kills the copyright law industry is a win for literally everyone.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  Except when it helps quislings like Hawley.
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    That's the thing though. How does it help Hawley to have copyright law curtailed, thus enabling even more free expression? Or does this law somehow only apply to Disney and no other copyright holding entity?
    - klyrs 4y ago
      The particulars don't help or harm Hawley. The value to him is in virtue signalling to his voter base. Not for any principled stance on free expression, but for fighting "wokeness."
      - _carbyau_ 4y ago
        I mean, I guess he can spin any way he wants. He has branded Disney as a "for the woke" company. I am no "mouthpiece of the woke" but I thought the actual "woke" wanted lesser copyright years? And he's trying to deliver that. The best thing here is for the "woke" to loudly cheer him on in this - thus supporting what they want AND confusing the fanbase he thought he was targeting.
        spacemanmatt 4y ago
        It is no gain for anyone to cheer on Hawley. Any small gains made by accident though him are lost to his greater cynicism and general disregard for anyone except Hawley.
pyuser583 4y ago
It’s iffy. But considering Disney has been singled out for special privileges again and again, I don’t feel much pity. They’ve been using politics to increase their bottom line for decades.
car_analogy 4y ago
> Is it okay for the government to enact targeted legislation to punish the exercise of legitimate political speech? It's not. This may be fresh legal ground, but it could be argued that it's a 1st amendment violation, if the law can be shown to be in retaliation* to speech, even if the law itself complies with the 1st amendment. (Mind that these are distinct questions: Is it OK, and is it legal. And even though I've answered that it's not okay, I still welcome the move. It's less not okay than perpetual copyright.) But I think accepting that argument would be even more perilous. If the motivation of legislators can be used to overturn otherwise constitutional laws, you're in a big mess. E.g. you could argue that an algorithmic transparency law violates the 1st amendment if it was motivated by Musk's purchase of Twitter. The other question is, does this set some kind of precedent - not legal, but of political norms. I'm not sure, but quite possibly yes. While there are plenty of examples of government harming or helping various entities depending on how in-favor they are, there may be a difference in kind here. *Extremely mild retaliation - I would be surprised if more than 1% of Disney's revenue can be attributed to works older than 50 years. Edit: Apparently the bill is more narrowly drafted than I thought, and would only apply to two companies in total. Laws this narrow supposedly have precedent to being illegal, according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334339 But it's an interesting question if to consider what the legal case would be if the law was a general reduction of copyright to ~50 years, for everyone.
- atkailash 4y ago
- klyrs 4y ago
  > it could be argued that it's a 1st amendment violation, if the law can be shown to be in retaliation* to speech I think that quote from my original post is pretty damning in that regard. He's openly declaring this as an attack on their bottom line because of clearly protected speech that he finds odious. > But it's an interesting question if to consider what the legal case would be if the law was a general reduction of copyright to ~50 years, for everyone. See, that's something I'd get behind!