4 ms·

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 rea

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).
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      The reregistration only works once, and it is presumably in the bill because that's how copyright worked a century ago. You got a 28-year term. If your work was still worth something after that, you could get one more term -- but because you had to file for it, only works that had commercial value were likely to get renewed, which meant that the public domain grew more rapidly than it would under a single 56-year term. Most works are actually abandoned by the end of 28 years, and this way someone else could pick them up.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    One can hope, right? I wonder what the story behind this is. Current copyright terms are ridiculous.
    - Yaa101 4y ago
      To make life difficult for 'Woke' companies where cartoon mouses rule, because they oppose his friends law against LHBTIQ+ people...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Thorrez 4y ago
If anyone wonders what the industries are, they're Motion Picture and Video Industries (5121) and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (71). https://www.census.gov/naics/ https://www.census.gov/naics/
Thorrez 4y ago
>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 think it's kind of the other way around. If the the law would cause copyright to expire while their license is still active, the copyright is extended for a bit, so that the person holding the license gets to keep the value of that license for a bit longer.
smokey_circles 4y ago
> it will never pass I'll take the Patriot Act for $200, Alex
- grnmamba 4y ago
  The Patriot act increased government power, so congress had an incentive to pass it. This act does not.

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).
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    The reregistration only works once, and it is presumably in the bill because that's how copyright worked a century ago. You got a 28-year term. If your work was still worth something after that, you could get one more term -- but because you had to file for it, only works that had commercial value were likely to get renewed, which meant that the public domain grew more rapidly than it would under a single 56-year term. Most works are actually abandoned by the end of 28 years, and this way someone else could pick them up.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  One can hope, right? I wonder what the story behind this is. Current copyright terms are ridiculous.
  - Yaa101 4y ago
    To make life difficult for 'Woke' companies where cartoon mouses rule, because they oppose his friends law against LHBTIQ+ people...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Thorrez 4y ago

If anyone wonders what the industries are, they're Motion Picture and Video Industries (5121) and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (71). https://www.census.gov/naics/ https://www.census.gov/naics/

Thorrez 4y ago

>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 think it's kind of the other way around. If the the law would cause copyright to expire while their license is still active, the copyright is extended for a bit, so that the person holding the license gets to keep the value of that license for a bit longer.

smokey_circles 4y ago

> it will never pass I'll take the Patriot Act for $200, Alex

grnmamba 4y ago
The Patriot act increased government power, so congress had an incentive to pass it. This act does not.