

A Few Global Cultural Treasures We Will Lose for 20 Years Under the TPP - CapitalistCartr
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/few-global-cultural-treasures-lose-20-years-under-tpp

======
themartorana
At this point, considering how absolutely consistent the USA has been with
extending copyright expirations when major IP is coming up to the deadline,
I've come to assume that copyright is now perpetual.

The US doesn't even make a show of it anymore. Mickey Mouse must be protected
at all costs in perpetuity, all the benefits of expiring copyrights to the
population at large be damned.

~~~
oofabz
It's not even just copyright, the federal government even protects Disney's
airspace:

[http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html](http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html)

TFRs (temporary flight restrictions) are intended for short-term events like
air shows and missile launches, but Disney's TFR has been in effect since
2003.

------
walterbell
Is the TPP still planning to criminalize fanzines & archivists, i.e. non-
commercial infringement of copyright?

[http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-
fanzin...](http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzine-
environment.html)

 _" In this ecosystem, the requirement of a complaint in the copyright law
works as a mechanism to respect the intention of the rights holder on whether
or not they want to intervene. Although the complaint requirement is only the
prerequisite for prosecution, in practice, it is rare for the police to
commence an investigation without a complaint by the rights holder.

However, this situation may change. The draft of the request of the US on
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) 15.5(g) stipulates, "its authorities may
initiate legal action ex officio with respect to the offenses described in
this Chapter, without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or
rights holder."_

------
kleiba
I find it amazing how strong the "content provider" lobby is. How did they
ever get so powerful?

~~~
daniel-cussen
I remember reading that in Perú in the 90s, Vladimiro Montesinos, the
president/dictator's right-hand man, would bribe a lot of power brokers to
take the administration's side on various matters. So far so boring: the
interesting part is he video-taped the bribery, so we have a pretty accurate
idea of how much he paid whom. Judges, IIRC, would get about $10,000, while
owners of news channels (technically channel owners who agreed to have their
press coverage take sides with the government) would get $5,000,000. In Perú.
In the 90s.

If we had nothing to go on other than the volume of these bribes to say who
had power and who didn't, I'd say...turns out, the media is pretty powerful. A
news anchor is probably more powerful than 100 judges. And so, in some way or
another, the American Government has to figure out a way to keep news outlets
as happy as they demand to be, or suffer the dire consequences. While
corruption in America exists, it isn't like the government could simply give
them billions of dollars (could be wrong here), so they try to please them by
enriching the conglomerates that own the channels in other ways. Primarily,
nowadays, that means perpetuating copyright monopolies, under more draconian
laws, in overseas countries that can be made or enticed to play ball.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> If we had nothing to go on other than the volume of these bribes to say who
> had power and who didn't, I'd say...turns out, the media is pretty powerful.

That probably isn't the right takeaway from these numbers. The owner of a news
network almost certainly makes a lot more money than a judge. The declining
marginal utility of a dollar at high income levels implies that it will take a
lot more to bribe a rich business owner than a middle class government
employee, regardless of the actual value of services rendered.

You're also ignoring the issue of scale. The court system has thousands of
judges but there are only a handful of major news networks. It looks to end up
costing about the same amount to bribe all the news networks vs. all the
judges.

Moreover, you're assuming that the entertainment business can dictate what the
news business reports strongly enough to make the politicians care. But if
that's the case then why aren't all the major news networks owned by oil
companies and banks?

The reason copyright keeps getting extended is that there has been no
organized well-financed opposition to it. Nobody with money is lobbying
against it. It's not like it even benefits the industry very much! How much
money is Disney really making on 100 year old movies? But the cost of
extending copyright is paid by the general public who aren't organized enough
to get their way, much as it is with all the other big industries that get
their way at the expense of the population at large.

~~~
patzerhacker
>Moreover, you're assuming that the entertainment business can dictate what
the news business reports strongly enough to make the politicians care.

In the United States at least the entertainment businesses can dictate what
the broadcast television news business reports. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is
owned by Universal. CBS is owned by Viacom.

------
kissickas
How long has the EFF been using that "Take Action" strategy? I just did it
with a little customized message and am happily surprised at how easy it was.

On the other hand, I almost missed the button at the bottom of the article. I
assume they've run some tests but the font on the button just reads "ignore
me" to my eyes.

------
bbanyc
If the Berne Convention were simply amended to make copyright terms perpetual
worldwide, I'd respect the process a bit more. I'd disagree with the move but
it'd be honest about what its goals are, as opposed to hiding behind "free
trade" to pass it piecemeal.

------
davidw
Well that's not a very accurate title is it? We will lose free, unhindered
access to them, but they'll still be there.

------
gaius
I say keep the copyright of the Crash Test Dummies as long as you like!

------
rayiner
> This is why so few European films have ever reached the public domain, and
> why Malaysian and Bruneian film lovers are far more fortunate—for now.

Oh yes, those poor European film lovers, with their local industries that
produce so many films that nobody could hope to watch them all. I bet everyone
in Europe deeply laments not being able to make derivative works of 50-year
old European movies, and envies their counterparts in Malaysia and Brunei.

