9 ms·

15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse copyrighted. Will they do it again?

99 points by brey 13y ago

bpodgursky 13y ago
Maybe some good will come of having a dsyfunctional congress unable to pass new legislation.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  While components of the federal budget have intense lobbying efforts dedicated to them, the budget as a whole doesn't. Which is why there's no incentive to pass a full budget: there's no bribery in it, and lots of political points to score by refusing and blaming the other guys. The copyright lobby, on the other hand, is a reliable bribe source every time they want something. So I'd expect an extension to just glide on through.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Let's not get carried away! There are no bribes. These are merely campaign contribution. Legal campaign contributions.
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
Between this and the patent law reformation it looks like the war for IP is going to happen in the next few years. Honestly though, I can't imagine a future in which Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ever enter the public domain.
- vnchr 13y ago
  After visiting Disney World, it is shocking to think how much money-generating activity is associated with those 3 circles that make up the Mickey Mouse sillouhette. I would imagine there is a compelling argument to make for preserving exiting business infrastructure associated with that and similar existing IP to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions over time. I disagree with that argument, but I could imagine some folks in congress letting that be what compels them.
  - derekp7 13y ago
    Couldn't the Mickey Mouse image be protected as trademark (which is infinite, as long as it is defended)? Even if the old films fall into the public domain, Disney could use trademark to keep people from creating new non-approved films.
    - devrelm 13y ago
      I've argued this point with friends for years. Individual characters (Mickey Mouse, Bart Simpson, James Bond, etc) and the like would be trademarked, and could only be used in new works by the trademark holder. Those works, however, would be released into the public domain after x years.
  - gjm11 13y ago
    It's not clear that it's actually generating money, as opposed to transferring money to Disney from other people. There is certainly a compelling argument to make for preserving something that generates a lot of wealth. Not so much for preserving something that merely transfers a lot of wealth to an already very wealthy business.
    - FkZ 13y ago
      Didn't you know? Transferring money is generating money!
  - cfqycwz 13y ago
    My understanding is that this whole debate is a bit sensationalized, because, whether their copyright expires or not, Disney will still hold a trademark--which exists indefinitely--on the likeness of Mickey Mouse. The issue at stake is their hold over the copyright of the original Steamboat Willie films--that's what the copyright is set to expire on. Yes, it would be very hard for Disney to exist if they lost IP rights to the likeness of Mickey Mouse, but they won't, because he's trademarked, and trademark exists to ensure that companies retain rights to the branding and art crucial to their operation and the identification of their business. Should Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain? I don't think anybody would argue that. But should the Steamboat Willie cartoons, a cultural landmark now nearing a century old, become common property? A lot more people would argue yes. My outline here is probably lacking some accuracy and precision, because I'm not an expert. If there are any details I've missed, please do let me know.
- msandford 13y ago
  I'd really love to see some kind of copyright system that makes it economic. Something like you get the first 30 years for free/cheap. After 30 years you have to start paying at $1k/year but it goes up 30% per year. 1.3 ^ 30 = 2619 so you'd pay $2.6mm for another year in year 60 of copy protection 1.3 ^ 60 = 6864377 so Disney would have to decide if it was worth it to pay $6.8 billion (or more) every year to keep Mickey under copyright. Even better if we could back-date it so that next year Disney has to cough up $40 billion or so to keep everything locked up.
  - GrinningFool 13y ago
    They tried that, with much lower fees[1]. I don't believe it's ever come to vote. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain_Enhancement_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain_Enhancement_Act
    - msandford 13y ago
      That's a good way of keeping track of who owns what and getting stuff out into the public domain if it's an orphaned work. But it doesn't do anything to stop the infinite copyright of books or movies or music. There's no reason that I couldn't write a book and assign the rights to a corporation which could then pay $1/year on it for as long as the US continues to exist. I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism that eventually forces copyrighted works into the public domain. And it should probably be less than a lifetime.
- wnissen 13y ago
  Imagine harder. Snow White and Cinderella were both compiled in Grimm's Fairy Tales, which was so popular that the brothers produced 7 editions over more than 40 years. It was the Harry Potter of its day. And yet, when Walt Disney was casting about, trying to find a story that would make the first ever full-length animated feature, there was Snow White, published 120 years before, just sitting in the public domain. Absolutely top quality "intellectual property" available for free, and Disney seized the opportunity. I may be painfully naïve, but I can see that happening again.
rayiner 13y ago
There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. That is to say, the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire. So copyright keeps getting extended, because it's "obvious." Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that? You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.
- everettForth 13y ago
  If copyright never expired. Disney would owe a lot of money to the heirs of the Brothers Grimm.
  - Udo 13y ago
    I suspect what rayiner means is that copyright should never expire for American corporations. Also, the Brothers Grimm would probably qualify as "crunchy hippies" in his book, so it's not like they were worthwhile people.
  - nhebb 13y ago
    rayiner has the qualifier "So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse". I assume that's not the case for the Brothers Grimm. I'm not a fan of Disney's practices, but rayiner makes a good point.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Is this continued use restricted to corporations, or is continued use by the estate or descendants sufficient? Would Tolkien need to form a corporation to handle the rights to his works in order to pass control of those works on to his children?
guard-of-terra 13y ago
Yes. This is a rare case where law of headlines fail.
derekp7 13y ago
I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything else. What I'd like to see is the following: First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process. But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.
- tunesmith 13y ago
  Songwriters everywhere would hate this. :-) I speak from the recent experience of trying to register one cd of seven songs, some of which were previously released on my website, some of which weren't, some of which had lyrics previously published, some of which weren't. The email threads with the library of congress on how to properly register, and how to properly amend my previous registrations, are legendary. If a songwriter with 50-100 (or more) songs were given a semi-short registration expiration, they'd never get anything done.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    What if "short" is 28 years?
  - derekp7 13y ago
    When I mentioned shorter, I meant shorter than "life of the author plus [bignum] years". My main concern is to figure out how to track down the original author, and also for preservation efforts (esp old films that are rotting away, and no one can archive copies of them legally if the "copyright holder" can't be tracked down, or is unknown). An alternative could be compulsory licensing of unregistered works that are beyond a given age. So that if someone uses it, and no one comes by to claim it is theirs, then all is good. But if a copyright holder shows up (and can prove ownership), then appropriate fees can be transferred at a standard rate.
jstalin 13y ago
Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Aren't all property rights "government-created monopolies"?
  - scottjad 13y ago
    "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      The idea being that governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this. Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion: To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.
      - 13y ago
tunesmith 13y ago
I'd rather Congress vote on specific exceptions rather than blanket it for everything. I'm one to believe our culture actually is for the poorer due to the lack of historical works entering the public domain. The problem is that it's a counterfactual, so we wouldn't really know if it were true.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
TomDavey 13y ago
> There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committee-Intellectual-Property-Brief http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committ... The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" -- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work. Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years. Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.
- andrewla 13y ago
  The incentives still exist in the present, even given a future when the creative artists are long dead. The ability to pass the rights down to descendants and the increase in the value of rights for the purposes of selling them to obtain cash can be significant incentives in the present. That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.
mullingitover 13y ago
There's actually a chance that congress is in a state where they could reject another retroactive extension. The two forces that could crush it are 1) public interest backlash, as we saw with SOPA, getting a chunk of democrats who aren't on the industry payroll and 2) the 'corporate welfare' argument that gets the tea party republicans. Congress is in a state of near-anarchy right now, since the traditional 'stick' of earmarks doesn't exist to keep the ideological members in line, and for once it could work out in the public's interests. All that said, I'm not holding my breath.
MarkMc 13y ago
Let's say the copyright period is not extended. Perhaps the government should then auction off the rights to Snow White, rather than putting it into the public domain. That is, Disney could buy a 25-year copyright extension, but they would have to pay through the nose for it. I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.
- mdc 13y ago
  That kind of implies that everything we create inherently belongs to the government, "they" let us use it for the period of copyright, and then it's theirs again to sell off. I can make a case for copyright ending and creative works no longer having an owner, but I can't make a case (philosophically) for them to automatically belong to the government.
  - MarkMc 13y ago
    But in a democracy the government isn't "they", it is "we". If we all have the right to copy and distribute a particular creative work, then we can collectively decide to trade that right for something we find more valuable (such as cancer research).
- cheald 13y ago
  That would require the government to take ownership of Snow White - that is, it would require that after a certain amount of time, all copyrighted works become the property of the government, who may then be under some mandate to auction it off or whatnot. Maybe some folks would be okay with this, but I would much rather my creations be owned by no one after a certain period than that the government just exercises some form of eminent domain over my property to take possession of it.
WalterBright 13y ago
A reasonable compromise is to allow copyright extensions to those who pay a fee for it. At a minimum, this will allow abandoned copyrights to slide into the public domain.
ffrryuu 13y ago
They are bought and paid, so yes.
MarkMc 13y ago
I don't know whether the copyright period should be 14 years or forever. But what really pisses me off is that the new copyright period is always applied retrospectively. By extending the copyright retrospectively the government is giving wealth to the copyright-holders by taking it away from the non-copyright-holders. When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it. If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No. You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.
- Zoomla 13y ago
  Do you also think that copyright lasting 2,000 years would be fine as long as it is not retroactive? I know it doesn't make sense to me...
- sitkack 13y ago
  I am not sure the government can/should make laws that are retroactive. It just _feels_ wrong. The teleco immunity being the largest in recent memory.
hardtke 13y ago
This article misses an important point. The reason that Sonny Bono was interested in extending copyright is that he was a scientologist, and the Church of Scientology is deathly afraid of their works reaching the public domain. If I remember correctly, they were among the main lobbyists for the last extension.
etler 13y ago
Is there any kind of distinguishment between characters and singular works? While I can see both sides for characters remaining copyrighted, I don't see much of a good reason why a singular work like steamboat willie should still be under lock and key.
noonespecial 13y ago
The biggest problem is that Disney is paying the lawmakers (in contributions) for these permanent rights, but not paying the people (the citizens) who grant them. This needs to be taxed. It's property they say? Property taxes. This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.
devrelm 13y ago
Why aren't characters trademarked instead of copyrighted? I feel like it would make so much more sense. Disney can have Mickey Mouse for as long as it wants, but the company has little to no financial need to keep 100-year-old cartoons out of the public domain.
- tzs 13y ago
  That's close to how I'd like to see it work. My system: 1. The copying right would have a shorter term. Maybe go back to 28 years with perhaps one renewal term. 2. The derivative work right would have a very long term. 3. Fair use would be expanded to explicitly recognize things sampling, parody, and the like. (Yes, I know this would be tricky to do well). I think this strikes a good balance between making cultural works readily available and affordable, and saving us from seeing a poorly animated Calvin and Hobbes selling breakfast cereal to kids in TV ads.
apostlion 13y ago
At this point, I would be actually happy for Disney IP to be in copyright forever, as long as they leave the copyright law alone and works start entering public domain again.

99 points by brey 13y ago

bpodgursky 13y ago

Maybe some good will come of having a dsyfunctional congress unable to pass new legislation.

ubernostrum 13y ago
While components of the federal budget have intense lobbying efforts dedicated to them, the budget as a whole doesn't. Which is why there's no incentive to pass a full budget: there's no bribery in it, and lots of political points to score by refusing and blaming the other guys. The copyright lobby, on the other hand, is a reliable bribe source every time they want something. So I'd expect an extension to just glide on through.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Let's not get carried away! There are no bribes. These are merely campaign contribution. Legal campaign contributions.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

Between this and the patent law reformation it looks like the war for IP is going to happen in the next few years. Honestly though, I can't imagine a future in which Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ever enter the public domain.

vnchr 13y ago
After visiting Disney World, it is shocking to think how much money-generating activity is associated with those 3 circles that make up the Mickey Mouse sillouhette. I would imagine there is a compelling argument to make for preserving exiting business infrastructure associated with that and similar existing IP to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions over time. I disagree with that argument, but I could imagine some folks in congress letting that be what compels them.
- derekp7 13y ago
  Couldn't the Mickey Mouse image be protected as trademark (which is infinite, as long as it is defended)? Even if the old films fall into the public domain, Disney could use trademark to keep people from creating new non-approved films.
  - devrelm 13y ago
    I've argued this point with friends for years. Individual characters (Mickey Mouse, Bart Simpson, James Bond, etc) and the like would be trademarked, and could only be used in new works by the trademark holder. Those works, however, would be released into the public domain after x years.
- gjm11 13y ago
  It's not clear that it's actually generating money, as opposed to transferring money to Disney from other people. There is certainly a compelling argument to make for preserving something that generates a lot of wealth. Not so much for preserving something that merely transfers a lot of wealth to an already very wealthy business.
  - FkZ 13y ago
    Didn't you know? Transferring money is generating money!
- cfqycwz 13y ago
  My understanding is that this whole debate is a bit sensationalized, because, whether their copyright expires or not, Disney will still hold a trademark--which exists indefinitely--on the likeness of Mickey Mouse. The issue at stake is their hold over the copyright of the original Steamboat Willie films--that's what the copyright is set to expire on. Yes, it would be very hard for Disney to exist if they lost IP rights to the likeness of Mickey Mouse, but they won't, because he's trademarked, and trademark exists to ensure that companies retain rights to the branding and art crucial to their operation and the identification of their business. Should Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain? I don't think anybody would argue that. But should the Steamboat Willie cartoons, a cultural landmark now nearing a century old, become common property? A lot more people would argue yes. My outline here is probably lacking some accuracy and precision, because I'm not an expert. If there are any details I've missed, please do let me know.
msandford 13y ago
I'd really love to see some kind of copyright system that makes it economic. Something like you get the first 30 years for free/cheap. After 30 years you have to start paying at $1k/year but it goes up 30% per year. 1.3 ^ 30 = 2619 so you'd pay $2.6mm for another year in year 60 of copy protection 1.3 ^ 60 = 6864377 so Disney would have to decide if it was worth it to pay $6.8 billion (or more) every year to keep Mickey under copyright. Even better if we could back-date it so that next year Disney has to cough up $40 billion or so to keep everything locked up.
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  They tried that, with much lower fees[1]. I don't believe it's ever come to vote. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain_Enhancement_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain_Enhancement_Act
  - msandford 13y ago
    That's a good way of keeping track of who owns what and getting stuff out into the public domain if it's an orphaned work. But it doesn't do anything to stop the infinite copyright of books or movies or music. There's no reason that I couldn't write a book and assign the rights to a corporation which could then pay $1/year on it for as long as the US continues to exist. I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism that eventually forces copyrighted works into the public domain. And it should probably be less than a lifetime.
wnissen 13y ago
Imagine harder. Snow White and Cinderella were both compiled in Grimm's Fairy Tales, which was so popular that the brothers produced 7 editions over more than 40 years. It was the Harry Potter of its day. And yet, when Walt Disney was casting about, trying to find a story that would make the first ever full-length animated feature, there was Snow White, published 120 years before, just sitting in the public domain. Absolutely top quality "intellectual property" available for free, and Disney seized the opportunity. I may be painfully naïve, but I can see that happening again.

rayiner 13y ago

There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. That is to say, the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire. So copyright keeps getting extended, because it's "obvious." Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that? You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.

everettForth 13y ago
If copyright never expired. Disney would owe a lot of money to the heirs of the Brothers Grimm.
- Udo 13y ago
  I suspect what rayiner means is that copyright should never expire for American corporations. Also, the Brothers Grimm would probably qualify as "crunchy hippies" in his book, so it's not like they were worthwhile people.
- nhebb 13y ago
  rayiner has the qualifier "So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse". I assume that's not the case for the Brothers Grimm. I'm not a fan of Disney's practices, but rayiner makes a good point.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Is this continued use restricted to corporations, or is continued use by the estate or descendants sufficient? Would Tolkien need to form a corporation to handle the rights to his works in order to pass control of those works on to his children?

guard-of-terra 13y ago

Yes. This is a rare case where law of headlines fail.

derekp7 13y ago

I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything else. What I'd like to see is the following: First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process. But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.

tunesmith 13y ago
Songwriters everywhere would hate this. :-) I speak from the recent experience of trying to register one cd of seven songs, some of which were previously released on my website, some of which weren't, some of which had lyrics previously published, some of which weren't. The email threads with the library of congress on how to properly register, and how to properly amend my previous registrations, are legendary. If a songwriter with 50-100 (or more) songs were given a semi-short registration expiration, they'd never get anything done.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  What if "short" is 28 years?
- derekp7 13y ago
  When I mentioned shorter, I meant shorter than "life of the author plus [bignum] years". My main concern is to figure out how to track down the original author, and also for preservation efforts (esp old films that are rotting away, and no one can archive copies of them legally if the "copyright holder" can't be tracked down, or is unknown). An alternative could be compulsory licensing of unregistered works that are beyond a given age. So that if someone uses it, and no one comes by to claim it is theirs, then all is good. But if a copyright holder shows up (and can prove ownership), then appropriate fees can be transferred at a standard rate.

jstalin 13y ago

Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.

tptacek 13y ago
Aren't all property rights "government-created monopolies"?
- scottjad 13y ago
  "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    The idea being that governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this. Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion: To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.
    - 13y ago

tunesmith 13y ago

I'd rather Congress vote on specific exceptions rather than blanket it for everything. I'm one to believe our culture actually is for the poorer due to the lack of historical works entering the public domain. The problem is that it's a counterfactual, so we wouldn't really know if it were true.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

TomDavey 13y ago

> There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committee-Intellectual-Property-Brief http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committ... The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" -- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work. Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years. Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.

andrewla 13y ago
The incentives still exist in the present, even given a future when the creative artists are long dead. The ability to pass the rights down to descendants and the increase in the value of rights for the purposes of selling them to obtain cash can be significant incentives in the present. That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.

mullingitover 13y ago

There's actually a chance that congress is in a state where they could reject another retroactive extension. The two forces that could crush it are 1) public interest backlash, as we saw with SOPA, getting a chunk of democrats who aren't on the industry payroll and 2) the 'corporate welfare' argument that gets the tea party republicans. Congress is in a state of near-anarchy right now, since the traditional 'stick' of earmarks doesn't exist to keep the ideological members in line, and for once it could work out in the public's interests. All that said, I'm not holding my breath.

MarkMc 13y ago

Let's say the copyright period is not extended. Perhaps the government should then auction off the rights to Snow White, rather than putting it into the public domain. That is, Disney could buy a 25-year copyright extension, but they would have to pay through the nose for it. I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.

mdc 13y ago
That kind of implies that everything we create inherently belongs to the government, "they" let us use it for the period of copyright, and then it's theirs again to sell off. I can make a case for copyright ending and creative works no longer having an owner, but I can't make a case (philosophically) for them to automatically belong to the government.
- MarkMc 13y ago
  But in a democracy the government isn't "they", it is "we". If we all have the right to copy and distribute a particular creative work, then we can collectively decide to trade that right for something we find more valuable (such as cancer research).
cheald 13y ago
That would require the government to take ownership of Snow White - that is, it would require that after a certain amount of time, all copyrighted works become the property of the government, who may then be under some mandate to auction it off or whatnot. Maybe some folks would be okay with this, but I would much rather my creations be owned by no one after a certain period than that the government just exercises some form of eminent domain over my property to take possession of it.

WalterBright 13y ago

A reasonable compromise is to allow copyright extensions to those who pay a fee for it. At a minimum, this will allow abandoned copyrights to slide into the public domain.

ffrryuu 13y ago

They are bought and paid, so yes.

MarkMc 13y ago

I don't know whether the copyright period should be 14 years or forever. But what really pisses me off is that the new copyright period is always applied retrospectively. By extending the copyright retrospectively the government is giving wealth to the copyright-holders by taking it away from the non-copyright-holders. When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it. If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No. You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.

Zoomla 13y ago
Do you also think that copyright lasting 2,000 years would be fine as long as it is not retroactive? I know it doesn't make sense to me...
sitkack 13y ago
I am not sure the government can/should make laws that are retroactive. It just _feels_ wrong. The teleco immunity being the largest in recent memory.

hardtke 13y ago

This article misses an important point. The reason that Sonny Bono was interested in extending copyright is that he was a scientologist, and the Church of Scientology is deathly afraid of their works reaching the public domain. If I remember correctly, they were among the main lobbyists for the last extension.

etler 13y ago

Is there any kind of distinguishment between characters and singular works? While I can see both sides for characters remaining copyrighted, I don't see much of a good reason why a singular work like steamboat willie should still be under lock and key.

noonespecial 13y ago

The biggest problem is that Disney is paying the lawmakers (in contributions) for these permanent rights, but not paying the people (the citizens) who grant them. This needs to be taxed. It's property they say? Property taxes. This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.

devrelm 13y ago

Why aren't characters trademarked instead of copyrighted? I feel like it would make so much more sense. Disney can have Mickey Mouse for as long as it wants, but the company has little to no financial need to keep 100-year-old cartoons out of the public domain.

tzs 13y ago
That's close to how I'd like to see it work. My system: 1. The copying right would have a shorter term. Maybe go back to 28 years with perhaps one renewal term. 2. The derivative work right would have a very long term. 3. Fair use would be expanded to explicitly recognize things sampling, parody, and the like. (Yes, I know this would be tricky to do well). I think this strikes a good balance between making cultural works readily available and affordable, and saving us from seeing a poorly animated Calvin and Hobbes selling breakfast cereal to kids in TV ads.

apostlion 13y ago

At this point, I would be actually happy for Disney IP to be in copyright forever, as long as they leave the copyright law alone and works start entering public domain again.