

The Bitter Legacy of Mickey Mouse - winestock
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-bitter-legacy-of-mickey-mouse/

======
gruseom
Unz's archive of periodicals (<http://www.unz.org>) is really something. Its
UI looks archaic, but the technology works surprisingly well and a tremendous
wealth of content is hosted there. The whole thing is a significant public
service.

One wishes more rich people turned into people like Ron Unz. He continues to
impress as an uncategorizable scholar and journalist, working on what
interests him and uncovering significant (if controversial) things. And _TAC_
is one of the best periodicals of its type.

~~~
wpietri
Could you say more about TAC? I'd love to find more US conservative voices (as
opposed to, say, radical reactionaries, theocrats, or cheerleaders for Team
Republican) so that I can better balance my media input.

~~~
gruseom
With respect to anigbrowl and [deleted], who probably know more than I do, I
think "paleoconservative" might not be the best label for _TAC_ , even though
some of their authors might use it. They're ideologically pretty loosely
formed, and as a group give me the sense of something new evolving rather than
of something old returning. What I have found them consistently to be is (1)
anti-imperialist (or anti-interventionist if you don't believe there's an
empire) and (2) intelligent. A few of their junior bloggers are too prolific
to be on average very good. But people like Daniel Larison, Dan McCarthy, and
Scott McConnell write consistently thoughtful pieces. They also publish
serious authors that get little attention elsewhere, like Andrew Bacevich.
Then there are Unz's own pieces which keep getting more interesting. But those
are an off-to-the-side eclectic sort of thing.

They also stand outside MSM consensus in a way that has genuine integrity.
Consider Eric Margolis' cover story from their inaugural issue (Oct 2002), a
blistering critique of the impending Iraq War that got almost everything
right. Not everything—in retrospect, he arguably overemphasized oil—but the
piece was a truth-speaking deviation from the groupthink and propaganda that
dominated that period. [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iraq-
invasio...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iraq-invasion-the-
road-to-folly/). I think most people would be pretty proud now to have
launched a magazine with that in 2002.

Basically, they've established themselves as freethinking conservatives who
have nothing to do either with the decadence of party conservatism or the
fanaticism of the right-wing base. That's what makes them valuable and worth
reading—such voices are needed. Not that I agree with all they say, of course.

(By the way, if you have time for podcast-type thingies, I've found a couple
of other sources that are surprisingly good. But I'll save that for some other
off-topic thread :) Or you're welcome to email me if you'd like to discuss any
of this offline.)

------
tzs
I wish we could consider different terms for the different aspects of
copyright. Copyright is not a single right--it is a bundle of rights. In the
US (whose law I will use for all of this comment), for instance, it includes:

• The rights to make and distribute copies,

• The rights to make and distribute derivative works,

• The rights to publicly perform and display works.

The power to even have Federal copyright law comes from this grant of power in
the Constitution:

    
    
       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.
    

That gives a purpose for the power (promoting science--which is used in its
archaic meaning, which means knowledge, rather than its modern meaning, which
is what once was called natural philosophy), and also the mechanism by which
it is to be exercised (giving authors a limited monopoly).

Shorter terms promote progress by making works more widely available, but
longer terms ALSO promote progress by letting authors make more money which
improves things on the supply side, so setting the term requires balancing
these, and I see no reason that the optimal setting for, say, copying should
be expected to be the same as the optimal setting for, say, making derivative
works.

I also see no reason the term needs to be the same for different types of
works. Music, literature, movies, and computer software are very different so
why would we expect that a term that is good for music when it comes to
balancing wide distribution vs. author incentive to also be good for
literature, moves, and software?

~~~
zokier
> I also see no reason the term needs to be the same for different types of
> works. Music, literature, movies, and computer software are very different
> so why would we expect that a term that is good for music when it comes to
> balancing wide distribution vs. author incentive to also be good for
> literature, moves, and software?

The problem is that attempting to categorize works might be futile. Eg.
chiptunes (a form of music) originally were software written for the sound
chips. Would they fall under "software" or "music" category?

------
columbo
Why not follow the same system as domains? Allow for yearly renewal of
copyrights. Failure to renew moves the item into the public doman regardless
if it has been 2 or 200 years.

The net-effect could be interesting; articles would move into the public
domain fairly rapidly (why pay to maintain the copyright of an article from
fifteen years ago about Y2K?) and established bodies of work with huge
corporate incentives would stay copyrighted for decades.

Disney want's to keep their mouse until the sun burns out and I couldn't care
less. All these other works that are now in legal limbo because of that is
what bothers me.

~~~
Aloha
I have an idea myself to solve this;

Unregistered works, are granted 10 years of protection, then either must be
registered or become public domain.

For individuals, After registration, Artist Lifetime, then renewal every 5
years thereafter.

For corporate owned/created work, registration good for 30 years, and renewal
every 5 years thereafter. Possibly, work must be kept in commercial
availability somewhere in the 5 year cycle or you potentially could be
challenged for the right to renew.

I like this system because it solves something I see as a serous problem,
abandoned works.

~~~
josteink
Before Mickey mouse and similar ilk came along, copyright was 7 years. 7.

No copyright which includes anyone's lifetime (and most copyrights are held by
corporations anyway) can be deemed reasonable in an age where information and
culture moves 100s of times faster than it did when the term was 7 years.

~~~
wpietri
I think individual copyright is reasonable for one's lifetime. I'd be ticked
if somebody used my photos from 10 years ago for profit.

Corporate or collective works, though, I agree. I think a 7-year expiration
would be fine. I expect that approximately zero investment decisions on new
movies or TV shows turn on the money they expect to make in year 8. And even
without copyright, modern studios are adept at producing new versions and
higher-end editions that would get new 7-year terms.

~~~
darkarmani
> I think individual copyright is reasonable for one's lifetime.

What is individual copyright? It becomes debased if you are saying it cannot
be sold to corporations. Lifetime is a ridiculous capricious standard.

~~~
wpietri
I'm ok with saying it can't be sold. Note that a lot of writers, for example,
don't sell copyright outright. They instead license somebody to be, say, the
US hardback and paperback publisher for their work.

A lifetime standard is only as capricious as life itself. Given that the laws
are made to serve human needs, I'm ok with it drawing a distinction between
serving living ones and dead ones.

------
RexRollman
Disney's stance on this is incredible when you consider that they have
profitted greatly on the back of public domain works.

~~~
eddieroger
It makes sense in that context, though. Clearly, Disney knows what profit can
be enjoyed from a public domain work, and wouldn't want others to profit on
the back of their property. Besides, Disney is a red harring in the article -
because of Disney's desire to protect their most iconic character, the author
can't read some old magazines online.

------
ansible
I've thought that all intellectual properties (patents, trademarks,
copyrights) should pay property tax, else it goes into the public domain.
Values are assessed just as with real estate. Mickey Mouse will end up costing
more than my crude sketch. But that may change if my character starts to
become popular.

Basically, if you are making money on the property, you will be able to afford
the tax. If the property is valueless, then you stop paying the tax, and it
goes into the public domain.

~~~
cdjk
While nice in theory, there's no way I can see that working in practice. With
real property there are comparable sales and the like, which can be reasonably
accurate - if another townhouse in the same complex sold for $x one month, $x
is pretty good estimate of the other values in the complex. Even this gets
tricky when you get out to a more rural area like wear I live, and the only
other sales are significantly larger or smaller houses.

I'm not even sure how you could do comparable sales for intellectual property.
Yeah, Disney's publicly traded, but imagine an trying to assess the value of
an asset owned by a privately held company that doesn't have to disclose any
financial information.

And even if you could assess values, look at the mess of property taxes in
California with Prop. 13.

~~~
hermannj314
I think you could address that if you pay taxes based on a declared worth $X
with the provision that anyone can exercise the option to buy the intellectual
property from you for $X or you can reassess at a higher price/move your IP to
the public domain.

The problem with this is that the creators of marketable and valuable IP could
not exercise creative control of their IP without paying a tax on the market
value of their IP even if they don't make money on it. Not sure about that.

I'm not buying into this idea at all, just adding a perspective.

~~~
cdjk
That might work for the likes of disney, but seems like it could be really
unfair to smaller copyright holders. Suppose I write a successful novel, and
that the "IP tax" is 1%. If I value it at $10m, my yearly tax is going to be
untenable at $100k, but that $10m is a rounding error for a large studio that
wants the movie rights. Yeah, I realize you could tweak the numbers, but I
think it's a valid objection.

One approach I have heard that might work is that you get some amount of time
of free copyright (20, 30, 50 years), and then have an increasing copyright-
registration fee for each year or extension period beyond that, up to some
maximum term. It could either increase linearly or exponentially, or someplace
in between. I'm not entirely sure it would work, but I think the idea has some
merit.

------
cromwellian
Something I was just reminded of. Now that Disney owns StarWars, I wonder what
will happen to fan videos? Will they pursue them aggressively?

------
Devilboy
The cynic in me thinks the current system is acceptable. Everything is
copyrighted forever and everything is freely available on The Pirate Bay
anyway.

~~~
DomreiRoam
I don't like the situation because authors doesn't get an honest compensation
for their work and you can't easily create new works based on old copyrighted
oeuvre.

I think it would be in the interest of the public that you have a more limited
in time copyright and after a certain delay an obligation to let other creator
reuse assets with a compensation schema that allows new creations.

