
Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won’t happen again - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-push/
======
jeremyjh
They aren't going to push until the very last moment. You can be sure they are
greasing the skids though. That mouse will NOT become public property.

~~~
vinceguidry
You're talking about a monumental lobbying effort against a vigilant public.
That's not the sort of thing that can happen overnight, and the article dealt
with the possibility of last-minute trickery.

The article makes some really good points. The political landscape really has
changed since 1998. The content industry may still have more resources
overall, but it's definitely going to get ugly if they try again. Hollywood
does _not_ want the public turning against them, that'll just make it worse.

Honestly I wish there were a way to compromise. Let companies pay for
perpetual copyright. They want to hold onto Steamboat Willie forever, let
them. Just don't drag everybody else with you. We just need to make it an
economic decision for them, so that the public's interests are served
eventually.

We want a thriving ecosystem in which apex predators like Disney _and_ the
caribou can thrive.

~~~
SmirkingRevenge
Is the public really that vigilant here? It might actually be news to most
that Disney is primarily responsible for long copyrights in the first place.

~~~
vinceguidry
The public, through their lobbying arm, the EFF among others. Americans like
to outsource their vigilance.

~~~
emodendroket
I feel the role of the world's Googles is far more significant than the EFF.

------
pmoriarty
Copyright should be abolished.

As it stands, copyright serves little positive social purpose. The
overwhelming majority of creators get paid little if anything for their work,
and still there is a glut of content. So there should be no fear of the world
losing lots of great content if there was no copyright.

Most of the benefit of copyright is reaped by the middle men, who profit off
the work when the creatives that made it have long ceased to do so (if they
ever did). Abolishing copyright will thus mostly affect these middle men, and
have little effect on content creation itself.

Those creatives that still want to get paid in a copyright-free era can find
business models that don't rely on copyright, like performances, donations, or
kickstarter-like models where one is paid for future work.

~~~
nv-vn
There's no incentive to make a movie if it will never make any money. Without
copyright, anyone can purchase it once and give it away for free or sell each
copy for $0.01 and undercut all competition. Digital content takes X amount of
work and then allows it to be duplicated by creating infinite copies. If
someone can infinitely copy your work, you will never get paid for that X
amount (or make any profit). While I don't strongly support current IP law,
getting rid of it isn't the solution. It's like having an economy based on
fake money, after a very short period of time the money becomes worthless
(except here the money = work).

~~~
chriswarbo
> There's no incentive to make a movie if it will never make any money.

> Without copyright, anyone can purchase it once and give it away for free or
> sell each copy for $0.01 and undercut all competition.

That's not a problem if the creators were paid to make the movie.

The parent mentioned several mechanisms to do this. It's not hard: after all,
that's how basically all industries have worked since forever.

Anecdotally: half of the jobs I've had were producing private, in-house
software; I got a regular wage for doing this, since the companies found such
software useful. No need for copyright. The other half were paying me to
produce FOSS which, once it was written, we _wanted_ people to copy and spread
for free, since that would gain us more attention (and potential customers for
our related services). Again, no need for copyright (although some were strong
copyleft, with network-use clauses)

~~~
madmax96
I don't think it's wise to compare software development with other creative
production. Software can provide a quantitative value through _functionality_
to its users. Copyleft software often makes sense because it becomes possible
to create a community of users that also support the project, making it
cheaper and functionally superior for everyone.

Media is a much different story, and transforming creators into beggars (as
suggested) is not a solution. At that point, creators are competing with their
ability to beg, and not their ability to create. Any person with a reasonable
amount of self-respect and pride in their work would not tolerate that kind of
existence.

~~~
chriswarbo
Why is it "begging" if, say, a screenwriter does it; but it's "customer
aquisition" (or equivalent) for everyone else on the planet?

~~~
madmax96
Because "customer acquisition" means that a business offers something of
value, reaches out to entities that might be interested in obtaining that
value, and enters into an agreement to supply that value for another value.

That process is totally different from asking for donations (which is
literally begging -- no value is being offered, but value is expected to be
received.) Kickstarter can certainly produce valuable media, but it eliminates
the possibility of a small group of people taking a risk on content. That will
undoubtedly have major effects on the kind of content that is produced, the
question is _what_ will that impact be?

~~~
chriswarbo
> That process is totally different from asking for donations

Whilst donations might work for some, I was mostly talking about doing work
(to provide value, e.g. writing, sculpting, etc.) for an amount agreed-upon in
advance (either paid to an escrow service, or invoiced afterwards). Movie
companies could take on the role of escrow service, rather than their current
role as investment vehicle.

> (which is literally begging -- no value is being offered, but value is
> expected to be received.)

If 'no value is being offered' by movies, games, etc. then why do people
_already_ pay money for things like DVDs? Copyright can't be the reason, since
that doesn't compel anyone to buy stuff they see no value in (copyright just
restricts who can do the selling).

------
blkhawk
I think it should be extended again. How else can dead authors and musicians
be incentivized into creating new works?

~~~
shirian
To be fair, the life expectancy of people keeps increasing.

~~~
kenny_r
I don't think anyone will ever live for another 70 years after their death.

~~~
PurpleRamen
No, but children and grandchildren might live on after their dead. Copyright
after death is mainly for heritage-reasons, to close the gap to families who
inherit valuable physical objects or land owning-rights.

~~~
josteink
So your parents made _stuff_ which due to a legal monopoly they were able to
earn money and property from.

Not only are you to inherit the money and property they earned. You are also
to inherit the right to further make new money from this legal monopoly on
something you have done nothing for at all.

Sounds reasonable to me.

~~~
simonh
So if I create a work and die the day it’s published, my heirs should get
nothing. How reasonable does that sound?

~~~
jrimbault
On the other hand, if I kill someone right before I die myself (from "natural
causes"), will my heirs be criminals ?

Sounds reasonnable ?

~~~
sleepychu
Right but if you kill someone and stay living your heirs are not criminals
either.

If you create the next billion dollar game and survive your heirs (or those
you specify in your will) will surely be enriched, perhaps it should be 70
years alive or dead that copyright persists for.

~~~
jrimbault
> perhaps it should be 70 years alive or dead

I agree

------
freeflight
Even if it won't be extended, the damage has already been done. Imho this
whole complex around "copyright" and "intellectual property" is probably the
biggest "capital bubble" in human history.

Tangible goods are finite on this planet, intangible goods (like IP) are not,
so they are the perfect tool for keeping this "perpetual growth machine" aka
world economy going, even if actual resources become scarce, we will never run
out of ideas to "monetize".

In that regard, I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the developed
economies have moved from manufacturing industries, dealing with actual goods
and finite resources, to "service industries", where most of the value is
generated through "ideas" which are infinite.

It's easy to put a value on something tangible, you can calculate the
resources that go in there, the man-hours needed to manufacture it, the costs
of the manufacturing facilities. The same does not apply to most intellectual
property, its whole value is pretty much an arbitrary estimation with no
limiting factors in terms of real-world resources, as such there are no
rational limits to how much one could charge for them.

------
baldfat
Pragmatic Solution:

Make 4 year extensions for copyright to cost $1,000,000 per item. Increase the
fee to account for inflation.

Micky Mouse and Sherlock Holmes (2nd Half) will stay locked up but the 99.9%
of the other works are freed.

It isn't perfect but it will release the rest into public domain.

~~~
pimmen
As you say, it's not perfect, but it would absolutely help us preserve culture
beyond what is still classic 75+ years from now.

We have lost the vast majority of silent era films and more historical films
will follow since it's illegal for you to save them to digital format without
the explicit consent from the content creator. We won't lose _Casablanca_ or
_The Seventh Seal_ since they're preserved by historical archives and
companies can still make money screening them but TV-movies like _Star Wars
the Holiday Special_ is only being preserved by illegal means because nobody
bothers enforcing its copyright. Sure, that movie is an abomination, but film
historians 100 years from now would presumably want some proof that Lucas made
it and that it really was the first appearance of Boba Fett.

------
GFischer
Relevant EFF explanation of what will happen:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-
fr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-free-mickey-
thats-beside-point)

 _In 2018, the copyright on those early Mickey cartoons will end (if Congress
doesn 't repeat the sins of '76 and '98, that is—and you can bet we'll be
pulling out all the stops to prevent that). What happens then?

Almost nothing, if Disney and friends get their way.

title card for Steamboat Willie Those Mickey cartoons are almost certainly in
the public domain anyway. In the late 1920s, copyright wasn't automatic:
rightsholders had to undertake certain "formalities"—registering with the
Copyright Office and displaying correctly formatted notices—and then renew
those formalities periodically. Scholars who've looked into the matter make a
very good case that the early Disney organization flubbed its registration,
notice and renewal, and there are probably cartoons that are in the public
domain today.

Which is not to say that Disney wouldn't sue you if you tried to remix them,
upload them to the Internet Archive, or sell them in on a compilation DVD of
other public domain cartoons from the period. They almost certainly would, and
it would cost you an unthinkable sum of money to defend yourself. Emerging
victorious but impoverished, you would have won a small victory.

But at that point, we expect that Disney will try to use another body of law
to suppress creativity and commerce involving Mickey Mouse, whether or not
"Steamboat Willie" and "Plane Crazy" are in the public domain: trademark law.
If you sell something Mickeyish—including its public domain cartoons—Disney
might ask a court to stop you because people who buy the cartoons from you may
think they're buying from Disney. Back to court with you!_

------
madebysquares
They discuss is briefly but my understanding is the copyright only protects
the work itself. IE the movie steamboat willie could now be freely published
by anyone with access to it? But Disney will still own the trademark and be
the only entity that can produce new original Mickey Mouse content?

~~~
humanrebar
> ...and be the only entity that can produce new original Mickey Mouse
> content?

This is confusing to me. If copyright is up on Steamboat Willie, producing
derivative works based on Steamboat Willie has to be allowed, so original
content that remixes and adds to Steamboat Willie to make a new cartoon must
be OK.

~~~
josho
That’s correct. But Disney has trademarks around Mickey. So you can’t call
your work Mickey Mouse. And you may find yourself in court if your work too
closely matches any of the trademarks Disney has on the Mouse. So it will be
risky as Disney may wish to drown you in legal filings based not on copyright
but trademarks.

~~~
humanrebar
You'll probably find yourself in court in any case. That doesn't mean that
Disney is _right_ , just powerful.

And there is such a thing as fair use in a trademark. Being descriptive is
fair use of a trademark. You can market your breadbox as being compatible with
Acme Bread. And you can describe your Sherlock Holmes book as containing
Sherlock Holmes and as an extension to the public domain canon.

I don't see why Mickey Mouse gets special treatment just because he's also on
logos and such. Disney, at the least, is forcing a conflict between trademark
law and public domain law to see what it can get away with.

------
SiempreViernes
The basic argument is that "big content" don't seem to be pushing it, scared
off by the protests against SOPA.

Honestly, I think the clickbait "why" does the article a disservice: it is a
more in depth work than the 150 word bullet point with gifs that the "why"
advertises.

------
teddyh
In that case I guess they’ll just up the DRM on everything to make actual
copyright law irrelevant.

~~~
emodendroket
They can't recall a bunch of extant books and DVDs.

~~~
teddyh
DVDs have DRM.

~~~
emodendroket
In practice that DRM has been a "solved problem" for a long time. Blu-Rays
have somewhat more effective protection.

~~~
teddyh
You’re missing the point. If Steamboat Willie was allowed to lapse out of
copyright, and Disney decided to release it on DVD, _it would still be illegal
to copy it_ , since that would be breaking the DRM, which is _in itself_
illegal.

Which was my original point – if they allow copyright to lapse, they’ll just
add more DRM to everything to make copyright irrelevant.

Copyright was never meant to make anything hard to copy, and neither is most
DRM. Both are there to make it _illegal_ to copy.

------
beautifulfreak
Most people wouldn't complain if a new category of copyright were created just
for Disney, and anyone else who wants an extra 75 years. Let it be opt in.
Most people understand why Disney values its mouse etc., and that it stands to
lose income if copyright expires. We get it that they're a special case. We
the people can live without that stuff in the public domain. Why doesn't
Congress just ask us? (Or would that be unequal protection under the law?)

------
MechEStudent
I disagree. Disney has money, and all politicians spend at least half of their
working hours soliciting money in exchange for the promise of writing laws. It
will be extended.

The founders idea of patent and copyright as being meant to last as long as a
working lifetime (20 years) died a long time ago. This is just one more
evidence of the democracy moving to plutocracy.

Let's watch it get renewed. Then, up-vote my comment.

------
keir-rex
What does this mean in reality... You could make derivative works of the
original Mickey Mouse free from copyright infringement? Would copyright still
be in place for subsequent Mickey Mouse productions?

~~~
lmm
> You could make derivative works of the original Mickey Mouse free from
> copyright infringement?

Yes, though be careful not to infringe on Disney's trademarks while doing so.

> Would copyright still be in place for subsequent Mickey Mouse productions?

Yes.

------
js8
I think the copyright is slowly becoming irrelevant, I have a feeling that the
real push is to treat copyrights the same way as patents (intelectual
property), so for instance, you cannot make a cartoon with Mickey Mouse even
if you make character a bit different or call it differently, or you cannot
take a Disney story with slightly different characters. Basically, it won't be
any more about protecting own creative work but about creating an artificial
scarcity.

~~~
dotancohen
I don't know what you think a Disney story is, but all of Disney's major works
are based on existing folk stories and other works already in the public
domain.

~~~
DerekL
> I don't know what you think a Disney story is, but all of Disney's major
> works are based on existing folk stories and other works already in the
> public domain.

False. Here's some of their animated features based on copyrighted works (as
best as I can tell):

Dumbo

Bambi

Peter Pan

Lady and the Tramp

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

The Sword in the Stone

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

The Rescuers

The Fox and the Hound

The Black Cauldron

The Great Mouse Detective

Treasure Planet (partially based on the 1987 TV miniseries Treasure Island in
Outer Space)

Meet the Robinsons

The Princess and the Frog

Big Hero 6

(I'm using the list in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films),
and picking out the “based on” or ”inspired by” credits that look recent
enough.)

~~~
DerekL
Also, some of their animated movies are original, including “Lilo & Stitch”
and “Zootopia”.

------
_pmf_
Can't they just use trademark based enforcement if copyright extension stops?

~~~
GFischer
They will, and the article addresses that (edit: see EFF article at the bottom
for in-depth explanation), but they won't have the copyright to "Steamboat
Willie" anymore, which is as it should be.

Disney itself benefited greatly from the Grimm Brothers and other fairy tales,
they should let new generations benefit from theirs.

Edit:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales)

and, most importantly:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-
fr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-free-mickey-
thats-beside-point)

------
jlebrech
there should be extensions to protect from gross misuse but only that, so
mickey mouse in an advert could be ok but in a porno wouldn't

~~~
dpark
I imagine Disney would rather Mickey Mouse show up in porn than someone else’s
advertising. Mickey in porn is distasteful but realistically doesn’t diminish
Disney’s brand. Mickey in someone else’s advertising absolutely does.

------
Jnnz
I'm surprised that people cares about this. A cartoon not becoming public
property.

~~~
emodendroket
The "Mickey Mouse" copyright extensions affect all creative works.

