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

[Eltab]

The "retroactive" part has Constitutional problems - "no ex post facto law" - but the concept is sound.

It still has to go through (at least in theory) the committee process for legislation and persuade 51 Senators this is a good idea. Plenty of opportunity to polish the rough edges ... or disappear the proposal into a black hole.

 

[payn]

The "retroactive" part has Constitutional problems - "no ex post facto law" - but the concept is sound.

It still has to go through (at least in theory) the committee process for legislation and persuade 51 Senators this is a good idea. Plenty of opportunity to polish the rough edges ... or disappear the proposal into a black hole.

Wouldn't it need 60 senators?

 

[Retreater]

Wouldn't it need 60 senators?

Last I counted the Ottawa Senators have 25 players on their roster. And now that their hockey season has ended, anything is possible. They could carry the deciding votes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

I'd be all for a 3 tier system. Total control from 20 years or death of the creator, then something like a non-commercial creative commons license with some automatic default "creator gets X percentage of income made from the IP" until the death of the author, and then after that the only protection is that you have to be cited as the creator of the IP when the IP is used by others.

 

[trappedslider]

speaking of copyright Toni Basil gets her 'Mickey' acclaim — and copyright — 40 years later: 'I really thought I should put my foot down and receive money for it'

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The "retroactive" part has Constitutional problems - "no ex post facto law" - but the concept is sound.
.

That only applies to criminal laws.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hawley is a giant jackass trying to pick a fight with Disney.

Mod Note:

Discussing copyright is probably OK, but let’s not get into bashing the politicians in a truly personal fashion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That only applies to criminal laws.

While true, IP law- including copyright- contains the possibility of criminal penalties for violations, so it’s still an issue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While true, IP law- including copyright- contains the possibility of criminal penalties for violations, so it’s still an issue.

Nope. Because this wouldn’t create retroactive criminal penalties.

The ex post facto clause is much more limited than most people realize.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nope. Because this wouldn’t create retroactive criminal penalties.

The ex post facto clause is much more limited than most people realize.

You’re probably right on this one. Near as I can tell, Hawley’s proposal says nothing about changing the criminal penalties, just the duration.

OTOH, the First Amendment issues (doing this because Disney expressed a political opinion certain GOPers don’t like) and Fifth Amendment issues (taking property without due process) would remain significant barriers to this surviving a well-funded legal challenge.

(And I doubt Disney would be fighting this alone- amicus briefs would darken the skies.)