Congress Is Looking To Extend Copyright Protection Term To 144 Years

[ElNono]

"Because it apparently isn't bad enough already, Congress is looking to extend the copyright term to 144 years (https://www.wired.com/story/congress-latest-move-to-extend-copyright-protection-is-misguided/),". "Please write to your representatives and consider donating to the EFF." American attorney Lawrence Lessig writes via Wired: Almost exactly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act), which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. The Act was the 11th extension in the prior 40 years, timed perfectly to assure that certain famous works, including Mickey Mouse, would not pass into the public domain. Immediately after the law came into force, a digital publisher of public domain works, Eric Eldred, filed a lawsuit challenging the act [which the Supreme Court later rejected].

Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2393) purports to create a new digital performance right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?) -- for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.

[spurraider21]

cmon nono nobody wants to talk about these boring issues

[ElNono]

Bill sponsors:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2393/cosponsors

No partisanship problem for det one...

[DMC]

Winehole will be along shortly with 23 posts about it, consecutively.

[TSA]

cmon nono nobody wants to talk about these boring issues

Did you take your convo with nono about this topic to PM?

[spurraider21]

Did you take your convo with nono about this topic to PM?
nope. why you ask?

[TSA]

nope. why you ask?

Oh you were being serious when you said no one wants to discuss the topic?

[Winehole23]

Winehole will be along shortly with 23 posts about it, consecutively.Just one: it's fucking bullshit.

I've already posted plenty on this, no one cares, tbh.

[Winehole23]

thanks for the post, El Nono

[Spurtacular]

This wouldn't bother me if there wasn't so much manipulation of the current copyright laws by big business and the government.

[Nathan89]

The mouse belonging to Disney doesn't bother me. Every time this is mentioned it's always with that application of the law. I'm not sure of every other use case but that one doesn't bother me.

[ElNono]

Both the copyright and patent systems grant a constitutional, government sanctioned monopoly for what's supposed to be a limited time.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Patents have been generally kept within 20 years, but the situation with copyrights is absolutely disgusting.

It's not just that they're looking to extend it for almost 2 lifetimes, but they're also trying to restore retroactive rights to material that was already in the public domain.

If you love capitalism, then you gotta love competition and innovation, and this kind of bastardization of an otherwise useful system should really tick you off, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Most probably, the oligarchy will buy enough whores to get this passed.

"Patents have been generally kept within 20 years" patents also abused, eg, BigPharma tweaking patented drug to extend the patent and the $Bs in exorbitant revenue. and the BigPharma-populated, -compromised FDA acquiesces.

Just one part of the oligarchy rigging the system to screw the country for profit

[Blake]

I see both sides.

It all depends at how you perceive intellectual property and such.

[boutons_deux]

I see both sides.

It all depends at how you perceive intellectual property and such.

How I see IP has no effect in practice.

nope, the IP owners, esp the oligarchy, have one side, to abuse (dictate/repeal laws and regs) patents and copyrights to extend them effectively indefinitely, beyond all "reason".

I always assume "bad faith", ie, guilty, from politicians, the oligarchy, conservatives. Exceptions are very rare.

[hater]

Tor browser and case closed nigas

Copyright dont exist there :lol

[Blake]

How I see IP has no effect in practice.

nope, the IP owners, esp the oligarchy, have one side, to abuse (dictate/repeal laws and regs) patents and copyrights to extend them effectively indefinitely, beyond all "reason".

I always assume "bad faith", ie, guilty, from politicians, the oligarchy, conservatives. Exceptions are very rare.

Op mentions Mickey Mouse.

Why should Mickey ever be public domain?

[boutons_deux]

Op mentions Mickey Mouse.

Why should Mickey ever be public domain?

why should Mick not be in the public domain, 90 years after creation? Disney could still use it, as could animated porn cartoons.

[Blake]

why should Mick not be in the public domain, 90 years after creation?

Because Disney created it and owns it.

[baseline bum]

Because Disney created it and owns it.

Disney has been dead more than 50 years.

[CosmicCowboy]

So no more Elvis impersonators?

[Blake]

Disney has been dead more than 50 years.

K, the family/company owns it. Why do we want to force them to give it up?

[Blake]

So no more Elvis impersonators?

Impersonations don't fall under copyright law

[Othyus Lalanne]

Hey Rpublicans. This you chance to fuck with Disney. They deserve it.

[boutons_deux]

Because Disney created it and owns it.

comes back to why IP is govt-protected anyway. the question is whether, why govt would protect IP forever

[Blake]

comes back to why IP is govt-protected anyway. the question is whether, why govt would protect IP forever

My question is if you're gonna look at it as tangible property, why do you want to take it away from the family after the original owner dies?

Might as well confiscate Walt's Ming vase if he has one and stick in a museum.

[ElNono]

My question is if you're gonna look at it as tangible property, why do you want to take it away from the family after the original owner dies?

Might as well confiscate Walt's Ming vase if he has one and stick in a museum.

Because Mickey Mouse is an idea. It turns in actual tangible Ming vases when you turn that idea into the merchandise.

It makes sense that you would want to reward Walt for the time he invested into coming up with a successful idea, for a limited time, by breaking one of the most fundamental basis of our economy.

The Constitution recognizes there's an implicit benefit to society as a whole by letting those successful ideas fall into the public domain after limited times.

It allows for historians and archivists to document them, and everyone to learn about what went right and wrong. We evolve as a society on the shoulders of previous successes and failures.

These extensions make a mockery of that and simply slows us down. Mickey might now be the litmus test for advancing "useful art", but it's not just Mickey getting an extension, there's million of useful IPs out there that we could be dissecting an learning from.

[spurraider21]

Both the copyright and patent systems grant a constitutional, government sanctioned monopoly for what's supposed to be a limited time.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Patents have been generally kept within 20 years, but the situation with copyrights is absolutely disgusting.

It's not just that they're looking to extend it for almost 2 lifetimes, but they're also trying to restore retroactive rights to material that was already in the public domain.

If you love capitalism, then you gotta love competition and innovation, and this kind of bastardization of an otherwise useful system should really tick you off, IMO.
that's incomprehensible

[Blake]

Because Mickey Mouse is an idea. It turns in actual tangible Ming vases when you turn that idea into the merchandise.

It makes sense that you would want to reward Walt for the time he invested into coming up with a successful idea, for a limited time, by breaking one of the most fundamental basis of our economy.

The Constitution recognizes there's an implicit benefit to society as a whole by letting those successful ideas fall into the public domain after limited times.

It allows for historians and archivists to document them, and everyone to learn about what went right and wrong. We evolve as a society on the shoulders of previous successes and failures.

These extensions make a mockery of that and simply slows us down. Mickey might now be the litmus test for advancing "useful art", but it's not just Mickey getting an extension, there's million of useful IPs out there that we could be dissecting an learning from.

Yeah I'm still not seeing how Mickey needs to be public domain for the greater good, komrade.

[Fabbs]

"Because it apparently isn't bad enough already, Congress is looking to extend the copyright term to 144 years (https://www.wired.com/story/congress-latest-move-to-extend-copyright-protection-is-misguided/),". "Please write to your representatives and consider donating to the EFF." American attorney Lawrence Lessig writes via Wired: Almost exactly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act), which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. The Act was the 11th extension in the prior 40 years, timed perfectly to assure that certain famous works, including Mickey Mouse, would not pass into the public domain. Immediately after the law came into force, a digital publisher of public domain works, Eric Eldred, filed a lawsuit challenging the act [which the Supreme Court later rejected].

Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2393) purports to create a new digital performance right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?) -- for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
Could you give a working example of this?

[Othyus Lalanne]

My question is if you're gonna look at it as tangible property, why do you want to take it away from the family after the original owner dies?

Might as well confiscate Walt's Ming vase if he has one and stick in a museum.

Should NBA players pay tax for moves they take from other players?

[Blake]

Should NBA players pay tax for moves they take from other players?

Excellent analogy!