4 ms·

The Copyright Clause Restoration Act [pdf]

15 points by ronsor 4y ago

magikaram 4y ago
In case anyone doesn't know, there is only one company that this law would apply to - Disney. No other copyright would be shorted. It is the only company with the classification and market cap that is stated in the bill. I think the copyright law does need to be revised. But making it apply to only Disney, as Hawley is intending, doesn't fix the system. Just makes another problem to sort when it will need to be fixed.
- nybble41 4y ago
  My reading is that the new 28-year copyright term with one 28-year renewal option with registration would apply to everyone going forward. Only the "retroactive effect" is narrowly constructed to apply only to Disney. This seems a lot like an unconstitutional bill of attainder; it may not actually use the name "Disney" but the effect is the same. Laws should not single out individuals or groups for special treatment, good or bad. The proper solution here would be to limit all copyrights to 28 years from the date the law is passed or initial publication, whichever is later, though IMHO 28-56 years is rather long. The original copyright term in the US was half that, 14-28 years, and it could stand to be even shorter. But it is at least a step in the right direction.
datacruncher01 4y ago
Clearly this is targeting Disney as a consequence on their non-support for HB 1557 in Florida.
codefreeordie 4y ago
This will never pass. That said, it is a weird bill. It basically returns copyright to the fixed terms of about a century ago for new works. That part is reasonably straightforward. But then the weird parts: existing copyright is also shortened -- but only for copyright held by large corporations in specifically named industries. But then, just to make life more confusing still, any existing work that would have it's copyright shortened to May 1, 2032 or sooner has an extra change: anybody who bought a license to such a work loses half the length of the license. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe. The whole thing is super weird. But, it isn't going to pass, so it doesn't really matter.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe. It is one of the powers specifically granted to congress so this isn’t one of their “commerce clause gives us power over everything” shenanigans.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    The dubious part isn't the 28+28 year copyright term for new works, but rather the part where they penalize a single organization (not named, but the criteria only includes Disney) by shortening only its copyright terms for existing works when everything else is grandfathered in. This is, arguably, a bill of attainder—punishment by legislative fiat without judicial process—which the Constitution specifically prohibits.
- hyperman1 4y ago
  Maybe that's the point. It becomes law then promotly getscthrown out again. So nothing changes but the politician claims he tried to do something.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    Nah, it doesn't matter whether this is constitutional or not, because it isn't actually intended to pass. It's just typical grandstanding. (I'm pretty sure that neither party actually wants to shorted copyright to 56 years)
    - derekp7 4y ago
      But why wouldn't they want to have copyright be re-registered (for a fee) every X years? That would allow people who still make money on copyrighted works to keep their business model, yet also allow abandoned works to enter the public domain. And it keeps companies from hoarding copyrights over works they aren't actively making available for sale. Not only that, this can bring in extra revenue from sources that aren't voters (although those sources do have more lobbying power than voters).

15 points by ronsor 4y ago

In case anyone doesn't know, there is only one company that this law would apply to - Disney. No other copyright would be shorted. It is the only company with the classification and market cap that is stated in the bill. I think the copyright law does need to be revised. But making it apply to only Disney, as Hawley is intending, doesn't fix the system. Just makes another problem to sort when it will need to be fixed.

nybble41 4y ago
My reading is that the new 28-year copyright term with one 28-year renewal option with registration would apply to everyone going forward. Only the "retroactive effect" is narrowly constructed to apply only to Disney. This seems a lot like an unconstitutional bill of attainder; it may not actually use the name "Disney" but the effect is the same. Laws should not single out individuals or groups for special treatment, good or bad. The proper solution here would be to limit all copyrights to 28 years from the date the law is passed or initial publication, whichever is later, though IMHO 28-56 years is rather long. The original copyright term in the US was half that, 14-28 years, and it could stand to be even shorter. But it is at least a step in the right direction.

datacruncher01 4y ago

Clearly this is targeting Disney as a consequence on their non-support for HB 1557 in Florida.

codefreeordie 4y ago

This will never pass. That said, it is a weird bill. It basically returns copyright to the fixed terms of about a century ago for new works. That part is reasonably straightforward. But then the weird parts: existing copyright is also shortened -- but only for copyright held by large corporations in specifically named industries. But then, just to make life more confusing still, any existing work that would have it's copyright shortened to May 1, 2032 or sooner has an extra change: anybody who bought a license to such a work loses half the length of the license. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe. The whole thing is super weird. But, it isn't going to pass, so it doesn't really matter.

UncleEntity 4y ago
> I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe. It is one of the powers specifically granted to congress so this isn’t one of their “commerce clause gives us power over everything” shenanigans.
- nybble41 4y ago
  The dubious part isn't the 28+28 year copyright term for new works, but rather the part where they penalize a single organization (not named, but the criteria only includes Disney) by shortening only its copyright terms for existing works when everything else is grandfathered in. This is, arguably, a bill of attainder—punishment by legislative fiat without judicial process—which the Constitution specifically prohibits.
hyperman1 4y ago
Maybe that's the point. It becomes law then promotly getscthrown out again. So nothing changes but the politician claims he tried to do something.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Nah, it doesn't matter whether this is constitutional or not, because it isn't actually intended to pass. It's just typical grandstanding. (I'm pretty sure that neither party actually wants to shorted copyright to 56 years)
  - derekp7 4y ago
    But why wouldn't they want to have copyright be re-registered (for a fee) every X years? That would allow people who still make money on copyrighted works to keep their business model, yet also allow abandoned works to enter the public domain. And it keeps companies from hoarding copyrights over works they aren't actively making available for sale. Not only that, this can bring in extra revenue from sources that aren't voters (although those sources do have more lobbying power than voters).