3 ms·

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

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    can you clarify how this law would only apply to Disney? Somehow I missed that in the article.
    - gamblor956 5y 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 5y 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.
Finnucane 5y ago
It's not, strictly speaking, a bill of attainder, which is prohibited. It is written so that the number of 'persons' affected would be very, very, small. It is written so that Hawley can make a noise knowing the bill will go nowhere. Here is the actual text of the bill: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Copyright%20Clause%20Restoration%20Act.pdf https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Co...
- gamblor956 5y ago
  Did you actually read the bill? As written, it could only apply to 2 companies, Universal and Disney (as those are the only 2 companies that both are in the movie production business and also operate theme parks), and both Universal and Disney are (or at least last month were) over $150 billion in market cap. A bill that narrowly drafted has been held to be a bill of attainder in almost every circuit in the U.S. (A bill of attainder does not need to be limited to a single target; what makes it illegal is that it is narrowly drawn and attempts to legislatively punish a person or entity for otherwise legal acts.) The punishment part is that the bill would retroactively limit copyright extensions for just those two companies 1 28-year term, and Disney copyrights would expire automatically upon passage of the law for everything dating back to at least Fantasia. Note that retroactive termination of copyright law is not permitted by our existing copyright laws, nor is it permitted by international treaties to which we are signatories. Or, in other words, it's unconstitutional multiple ways, and is a blatant attempt to exert fascistic coercion over a business with different ideological concerns than the author.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  If you don't think of attainder as a fascist tool, you should definitely review your history.
  - Finnucane 5y ago
    I didn’t say that. And Hawley is, without question a fascist tool. But this bill is a) not going anywhere and b) would be immediately challenged in court. Of course, the courts these days, who knows.
sidewndr46 5y ago
US copyright law historically has been written by the Walt Disney company to protect "Steamboat Willie" and related works. This isn't fascism, it's just corporatism.

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  can you clarify how this law would only apply to Disney? Somehow I missed that in the article.
  - gamblor956 5y 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 5y 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.

Finnucane 5y ago

It's not, strictly speaking, a bill of attainder, which is prohibited. It is written so that the number of 'persons' affected would be very, very, small. It is written so that Hawley can make a noise knowing the bill will go nowhere. Here is the actual text of the bill: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Copyright%20Clause%20Restoration%20Act.pdf https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Co...

gamblor956 5y ago
Did you actually read the bill? As written, it could only apply to 2 companies, Universal and Disney (as those are the only 2 companies that both are in the movie production business and also operate theme parks), and both Universal and Disney are (or at least last month were) over $150 billion in market cap. A bill that narrowly drafted has been held to be a bill of attainder in almost every circuit in the U.S. (A bill of attainder does not need to be limited to a single target; what makes it illegal is that it is narrowly drawn and attempts to legislatively punish a person or entity for otherwise legal acts.) The punishment part is that the bill would retroactively limit copyright extensions for just those two companies 1 28-year term, and Disney copyrights would expire automatically upon passage of the law for everything dating back to at least Fantasia. Note that retroactive termination of copyright law is not permitted by our existing copyright laws, nor is it permitted by international treaties to which we are signatories. Or, in other words, it's unconstitutional multiple ways, and is a blatant attempt to exert fascistic coercion over a business with different ideological concerns than the author.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
If you don't think of attainder as a fascist tool, you should definitely review your history.
- Finnucane 5y ago
  I didn’t say that. And Hawley is, without question a fascist tool. But this bill is a) not going anywhere and b) would be immediately challenged in court. Of course, the courts these days, who knows.

sidewndr46 5y ago

US copyright law historically has been written by the Walt Disney company to protect "Steamboat Willie" and related works. This isn't fascism, it's just corporatism.