That said, it is a weird bill. It basically returns copyright to the fixed terms of about a century ago for new works.
That part is reasonably straightforward.
But then the weird parts: existing copyright is also shortened -- but only for copyright held by large corporations in specifically named industries.
But then, just to make life more confusing still, any existing work that would have it's copyright shortened to May 1, 2032 or sooner has an extra change: anybody who bought a license to such a work loses half the length of the license.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe.
The whole thing is super weird.
But, it isn't going to pass, so it doesn't really matter.
Nah, it doesn't matter whether this is constitutional or not, because it isn't actually intended to pass. It's just typical grandstanding. (I'm pretty sure that neither party actually wants to shorted copyright to 56 years)
But why wouldn't they want to have copyright be re-registered (for a fee) every X years? That would allow people who still make money on copyrighted works to keep their business model, yet also allow abandoned works to enter the public domain. And it keeps companies from hoarding copyrights over works they aren't actively making available for sale.
Not only that, this can bring in extra revenue from sources that aren't voters (although those sources do have more lobbying power than voters).
The reregistration only works once, and it is presumably in the bill because that's how copyright worked a century ago. You got a 28-year term. If your work was still worth something after that, you could get one more term -- but because you had to file for it, only works that had commercial value were likely to get renewed, which meant that the public domain grew more rapidly than it would under a single 56-year term.
Most works are actually abandoned by the end of 28 years, and this way someone else could pick them up.
>But then, just to make life more confusing still, any existing work that would have it's copyright shortened to May 1, 2032 or sooner has an extra change: anybody who bought a license to such a work loses half the length of the license.
I think it's kind of the other way around. If the the law would cause copyright to expire while their license is still active, the copyright is extended for a bit, so that the person holding the license gets to keep the value of that license for a bit longer.
The dubious part isn't the 28+28 year copyright term for new works, but rather the part where they penalize a single organization (not named, but the criteria only includes Disney) by shortening only its copyright terms for existing works when everything else is grandfathered in. This is, arguably, a bill of attainder—punishment by legislative fiat without judicial process—which the Constitution specifically prohibits.
In case anyone doesn't know, there is only one company that this law would apply to - Disney. No other copyright would be shorted. It is the only company with the classification and market cap that is stated in the bill.
I think the copyright law does need to be revised. But making it apply to only Disney, as Hawley is intending, doesn't fix the system. Just makes another problem to sort when it will need to be fixed.
My reading is that the new 28-year copyright term with one 28-year renewal option with registration would apply to everyone going forward. Only the "retroactive effect" is narrowly constructed to apply only to Disney. This seems a lot like an unconstitutional bill of attainder; it may not actually use the name "Disney" but the effect is the same. Laws should not single out individuals or groups for special treatment, good or bad.
The proper solution here would be to limit all copyrights to 28 years from the date the law is passed or initial publication, whichever is later, though IMHO 28-56 years is rather long. The original copyright term in the US was half that, 14-28 years, and it could stand to be even shorter. But it is at least a step in the right direction.
18 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 60.6 ms ] threadThat said, it is a weird bill. It basically returns copyright to the fixed terms of about a century ago for new works.
That part is reasonably straightforward.
But then the weird parts: existing copyright is also shortened -- but only for copyright held by large corporations in specifically named industries.
But then, just to make life more confusing still, any existing work that would have it's copyright shortened to May 1, 2032 or sooner has an extra change: anybody who bought a license to such a work loses half the length of the license.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe.
The whole thing is super weird.
But, it isn't going to pass, so it doesn't really matter.
Not only that, this can bring in extra revenue from sources that aren't voters (although those sources do have more lobbying power than voters).
Most works are actually abandoned by the end of 28 years, and this way someone else could pick them up.
https://www.census.gov/naics/
I think it's kind of the other way around. If the the law would cause copyright to expire while their license is still active, the copyright is extended for a bit, so that the person holding the license gets to keep the value of that license for a bit longer.
I'll take the Patriot Act for $200, Alex
This act does not.
It is one of the powers specifically granted to congress so this isn’t one of their “commerce clause gives us power over everything” shenanigans.
I think the copyright law does need to be revised. But making it apply to only Disney, as Hawley is intending, doesn't fix the system. Just makes another problem to sort when it will need to be fixed.
The proper solution here would be to limit all copyrights to 28 years from the date the law is passed or initial publication, whichever is later, though IMHO 28-56 years is rather long. The original copyright term in the US was half that, 14-28 years, and it could stand to be even shorter. But it is at least a step in the right direction.