3 ms·

Unfair compromise suggestion: Exempt Disney from the law and shrink the public domain? Acknowledge reality and create competition for those who are beyond the l

Unfair compromise suggestion: Exempt Disney from the law and shrink the public domain? Acknowledge reality and create competition for those who are beyond the law, instead of them destroying the law for all?

Mindwipe 3y ago
The idea that the current lengths of copyright law are anything to do with Disney is a nice fiction but it's not true. The US has the copyright terms they have is because they were obligated to match the EU's by international treaty (where copyright is, in most cases, the end of the year 70 years after the author dies). The EU adopted that term to harmonise it's copyright with that of Germany. Disney certainly didn't object to a copyright extension in the US, but they weren't the driving force behind it, trade deals with the EU were, and the EU is not going to allow the US to reduce their term in a million years (and nor are the many other international signatories who have harmonised their term at a similar period since).
- tialaramex 3y ago
  > they were obligated to match the EU's by international treaty Nope. "We have to align to the more generous terms in territory X" is almost always one rationale offered for expansions, everywhere. There is no such treaty requirement. What the US is obligated to do by treaty is give everybody else's copyrights the same benefits their own get in their country. The reason this rationale is used is that it's cover to grow copyright indefinitely because you insist on "aligning" only with other people's more favourable terms, but of course in the process you also uprate the places where your terms were already most favourable, thus ensuring other countries with the same practice will likewise re-align, so this ping-pongs forever.
- amiga386 3y ago
  The USA unilaterally passed the Copyright Act of 1976, extending copyright to life + 50 years. The reason it did this was because the oldest works still enjoying copyright protection would have expired in 1977. Only in 1988 did the USA accede to the Berne Convention, and in 1990 acceded to the WTO TRIPS agreement. The EU didn't exist until 1993 (the EEC preceeded it) and the EU didn't try harmonising copyright law even among its own member states until 1993. The EU and USA don't have any trade deals, their last attempt (TTIP) went down in flames. And then came the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act In 1998, the USA extended its copyright terms - not because any international convention or trade agreement required them to. Again, the timing was because the oldest works still enjoying copyright protection would have expired in 1998. As Disney was openly lobbying Congress, and Mickey was due to enter the public domain in 1999, it becomes fairly clear why the USA did this. Nothing to do with Europe.

Mindwipe 3y ago

The idea that the current lengths of copyright law are anything to do with Disney is a nice fiction but it's not true. The US has the copyright terms they have is because they were obligated to match the EU's by international treaty (where copyright is, in most cases, the end of the year 70 years after the author dies). The EU adopted that term to harmonise it's copyright with that of Germany. Disney certainly didn't object to a copyright extension in the US, but they weren't the driving force behind it, trade deals with the EU were, and the EU is not going to allow the US to reduce their term in a million years (and nor are the many other international signatories who have harmonised their term at a similar period since).

tialaramex 3y ago
> they were obligated to match the EU's by international treaty Nope. "We have to align to the more generous terms in territory X" is almost always one rationale offered for expansions, everywhere. There is no such treaty requirement. What the US is obligated to do by treaty is give everybody else's copyrights the same benefits their own get in their country. The reason this rationale is used is that it's cover to grow copyright indefinitely because you insist on "aligning" only with other people's more favourable terms, but of course in the process you also uprate the places where your terms were already most favourable, thus ensuring other countries with the same practice will likewise re-align, so this ping-pongs forever.
amiga386 3y ago
The USA unilaterally passed the Copyright Act of 1976, extending copyright to life + 50 years. The reason it did this was because the oldest works still enjoying copyright protection would have expired in 1977. Only in 1988 did the USA accede to the Berne Convention, and in 1990 acceded to the WTO TRIPS agreement. The EU didn't exist until 1993 (the EEC preceeded it) and the EU didn't try harmonising copyright law even among its own member states until 1993. The EU and USA don't have any trade deals, their last attempt (TTIP) went down in flames. And then came the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act In 1998, the USA extended its copyright terms - not because any international convention or trade agreement required them to. Again, the timing was because the oldest works still enjoying copyright protection would have expired in 1998. As Disney was openly lobbying Congress, and Mickey was due to enter the public domain in 1999, it becomes fairly clear why the USA did this. Nothing to do with Europe.