4 ms·
> Essentially, other countries threatened trade deals if the US made terms dependent on formalities for non-US works. So the law was changed and copyrights were
by BeFlatXIII 3y ago
> Essentially, other countries threatened trade deals if the US made terms dependent on formalities for non-US works. So the law was changed and copyrights were restored.
Congress should have grown a spine and called their bluff rather than sell out the American public like that.
- shadowgovt 3y agoThe American public also likes being able to buy imports.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoI'd rather Congress adhere to the agreements they made.
- BeFlatXIII 3y agoIf a future Congress cannot secure the votes to pass the necessary laws to implement a treaty their predecessors [or the House refuses to implement a treaty the Senate] ratified, who is at fault?
- hedora 3y agoYou’re talking about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act? Claiming that was due to foreign pressure was just scapegoating / misdirection from its supporters. The US forced all sorts of copyright extensions on the international community back then (including DMCA-style DRM protections). The support section of the Wikipedia page lists the main lobbyists for the bill. They are all US based, and Disney started lobbying for it in 1990 (the year after the US was brought into compliance with the Berne convention). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
- mod50ack 3y agoNo, they're talking about the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1994), which is 100% about foreign works and formalities (copyright notice and renewal requirements). Disney was ''against'' that change because they benefited from foreign works (such as Prokofiev's ''Peter and the Wolf'') which were in the public domain in the US due to national ineligibility at the time.