
15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse copyrighted. Will they do it again? - brey
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/
======
MarkMc
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.

~~~
sitkack
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.

------
TomDavey
> 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-
Committ...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committee-
Intellectual-Property-Brief)

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
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.

------
jstalin
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
Aren't all property rights "government-created monopolies"?

~~~
scottjad
"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
_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._

~~~
throwaway420
> 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.

As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the
relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion
false.

For example, there is no one common power that controls all American and
British people. Yet Americans and British people travel to each other's homes,
have relationships with each other, trade with each other, and sometimes even
move from one country to another. All of this is done peacefully, with no
common power that controls both sides of the equation. Same thing with
relationships between Swiss people and Japanese people, or Chinese people and
Egyptians, or Brazilians and Indians, or anybody else that you choose.

If Hobbes' idea was true, wouldn't the relationship between two average people
that have no common power be rather warlike rather than the mutually
beneficially peaceful relationships that we see every day?

~~~
ubernostrum
_As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the
relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion
false._

Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are
subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to
a power (the laws of the country they're visiting).

And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries
themselves, and _of course_ the history of international relations is full of
countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any
need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right?

Right?

------
rayiner
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.

~~~
YokoZar
Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights. Why can't I use my
computer or printer however I wish, even if that means copying existing
content?

The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny
ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that,
in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the
"progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.

If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and
the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.

So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason
to believe in limiting copyrights.

~~~
andrewla
What, specifically, are the "basic property rights" that copyrights clash
with?

I ask because the general statement of "use my ... however I wish" is
obviously way too broad; I can't use my computer to commit fraud, or my
printer to print dollars. More generally, I would say the distilled basic
property right is to use my property in a way that does not violate anyone
else's rights or break any laws.

The most basic property right is the right to exclude others from the use of
your property, and in that sense, if we accept that "intellectual property" is
property, then it seems to apply there too.

I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner's comment and
felt instinctive disgust followed by grudging admiration -- the idea there is
really messing with my while framework for thinking about copyrights.

~~~
subsystem
"I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner [...]"

Uhm, no. Like many of rayiners "arguments" it's authoritative rhetorical
bullshit. He frames the question, makes some assertions that aren't backed up
and leaves the burden of proof on the reader. If you look closely you'll find
he's not even taking much of a position on the subject. So even if you manages
to disapprove what he's claiming you'll end up in a discussion you can't win
since he's the one making up the rules as you go along. Actually this is quite
similar to how copyright keeps getting extended.

------
derekp7
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
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.

~~~
derekp7
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.

------
mullingitover
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.

------
ChikkaChiChi
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
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.

~~~
gjm11
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
Didn't you know? Transferring money _is_ generating money!

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

~~~
ubernostrum
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
Let's not get carried away! There are no bribes. These are merely campaign
contribution. Legal campaign contributions.

------
MarkMc
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
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
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).

------
hardtke
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.

------
WalterBright
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.

------
tunesmith
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.

------
devrelm
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
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.

------
noonespecial
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.

------
etler
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.

------
apostlion
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.

------
guard-of-terra
Yes.

This is a rare case where law of headlines fail.

------
ffrryuu
They are bought and paid, so yes.

