3 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y ago
If you don't think of attainder as a fascist tool, you should definitely review your history.
- Finnucane 4y 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.

gamblor956 4y 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 4y ago

If you don't think of attainder as a fascist tool, you should definitely review your history.

Finnucane 4y 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.