New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[deganawida]

This seems like just a stunt to build credibility for Hawley without actually accomplishing anything. Any bill that actually gets signed into law would exempt all "intellectual property" owned by Disney and anyone else rich enough to buy politicians (i.e., not you).

Likely correct on both points, but I'm still glad to see it being discussed legislatively, even if it is a stunt. That's just me, though, and considering I broke one of my cardinal rules by commenting originally (I make a point of not discussing politics with anyone, usually, because I find it does nothing to help me grow), take with a huge helping of salt.

 

[niklinna]

It's a grandstanding stunt, unfortunately, in an effort to "punish" Disney for perceived wrongs. And because of that it's not going to be a serious thing. Limiting copyright to a flat 56 years period would violate the Berne Convention, which the US is a signatory to (the Berne Convention has a minimum of life+50 copyright for works with an author, or 50 years after publication/first showing for works like films or where the author is unknown).

If they were serious about fixing copyright they'd be talking about revoking the Sonny Bono Copyright Act of 1998, which extended the terms well beyond the minimums required by the Berne Convention. And IANAL but even then as far as I've been told they'd have to let the current copyright extensions put into place by that stupid act expire because of the Takings Clause of the Constitution, so Steamboat Willie will still be under copyright protection until 2024 regardless of anything anyone passes or doesn't pass before the deadline passes.

Ah well, should've known coming from him it wouldn't have been thought through....

 

[Uta-napishti]

Hawley is a giant jackass trying to pick a fight with Disney. Still, this is a great idea. 56 years is about right, and it should be applied retroactively.

 

[Blue]

For this reason I think that it should be a scale involving time after the death of the author/creator, rather than a set time period. Say Life+10 years, or simply the life of the author/creator, with no inheritable rights. If you create something at 20 and live until 90 should you then potentially die a pauper?

Just to understand, you are saying that a property you fully control from ages 20 to 76 will leave you a pauper, but if you extend it for 14 more years you will not? If it's that big of a deal, what happened to the money made during those 56 years?

 

[Jer]

Hawley is a giant jackass trying to pick a fight with Disney. Still, this is a great idea. 56 years is about right, and it should be applied retroactively.

In the US it can't be applied retroactively without compensating the copyright holders for the property that the government would be taking from them and making public. But reverting newly published works back to the pre-Sonny Bono Act standard and not granting any more extensions would be doable, fairly easy, and is something nobody is proposing (which is a good indication of how unserious the folks making copyright limitation proposals in the US Congress are tbh.)

 

[aco175]

Is this the place to call political figures we do not agree with a jackass and a moron?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As a copyright attorney myself, I’m really not in favor of rolling back durations on it. Beyond that?

This is mere political grandstanding that probably wouldn’t survive judicial review even if it did pass. Which it won’t, because it would put the US at odds with the aforementioned Berne treaty and other international law.

 

[Morrus]

How would that even work internationally? Would there need to be another treaty of some kind?

 

[edosan]

but I'm still glad to see it being discussed legislatively, even if it is a stunt

I'm going to make a wild guess and say the only people that are discussing this are the Senator and the reporters that read the press release.

This will die a quiet, rapid, and deserved death.

 

[Ryujin]

Just to understand, you are saying that a property you fully control from ages 20 to 76 will leave you a pauper, but if you extend it for 14 more years you will not? If it's that big of a deal, what happened to the money made during those 56 years?

Spent on, you know, living? The vast majority of copyright holders don't make Spielberg money. Some die while still trying to be paid just what they're owed, by publishers.

EDIT - For example a friend recently posted a picture of his $10.00 residuals cheque.