Yeah the proposal is basically theater (has no chance, and conflicts with some treaties that the US is currently in), but it is very interesting that anyone in Congress is even thinking that way. Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture" discusses the history of lengthening copyright terms and is worth reading. A shortening bill is quite a reversal of past practice.
IIRC, Sonny Bono (of the 1998 term extension act) was Republican, but he was a slight exception to the narrative that the Republicans are the party of finance and oil, while the Dems are the party of Hollywood and big tech. So Hawley's bill (a swipe at Hollywood and therefore at Dems) still fits the narrative.
If the bill passes, the early episodes of Star Trek and the early Beatles songs would enter the public domain around now. That would be cool, I guess.
Boris Johnson, PM of the UK famously said, "fuck business" He's now presiding over a country about to slide into recession and 10% inflation. I think discontent with the Tories are near to flash point too, rioting in the summer is predicted.
This is just another performative act of a politician pandering to right-wing extremists.
If politicians were really against businesses getting political they would ban corporate campaign donations and political funding contributions.
Here are some companies who got political by funding Josh Hawley's election campaign: Jones Financial Companies, Diamond Pet Foods, Hunter Engineering, Orscheln Group, Hallmark Cards, Bayer AG, Charles Schwab Corp, and Russell Stover Candies.
Whataboutism is super cool, no need to ever address or discuss anything with left wing extremists, it just ends up being WHAT ABOUT SO AND SO THEY DID THIS FIRST.
Left wing radical Marxism is already played out, just wait and see.
Your argument is something like: "companies shouldn't get involved in politics otherwise politicians will react negatively."
My observation is that companies often get involved in politics. And don't expect politicians to react negatively, contradicting your argument.
The missing connection in your argument is "companies shouldn't disagree with powerful politicians who expect fidelity to their cause."
That's got the proper amount of both-siderism to it, as it includes T.R.'s trust busting too.
T.R. was such a left-wing radical Marxist, with his FDA, stronger ICC, and pro-natural conservation attitude.
But hey, let's talk about the bill.
1) Who agrees with the bill? Hawley doesn't even have a co-sponsor.
2) The bill violates the Berne Convention ("sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it has not been shown within 50 years after the creation."), which we are signatory to.
3) The hyperfocus on Disney violates the Berne three-step test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test) which says exceptions 'cannot "do disproportional harm to the rights holders"'), so would also violate TRIPS Agreement, which we are signatory to.
You think Disney won't bring a lawsuit to the WTO? Or won't win? I wonder what trade sanctions might be placed on the US should Hawley's temper tantrum become real law.
If it's all bark and no bite, then it's performative.
Fascinating little diversion there, do you give lessons? We've all read Alinsky at this stage so this kind of argumentation becomes more amusing every time I see it.
I didn't realize my little distraction was enough to derail the conversation!
I would rather discuss how this proposed law affects our international copyright treaty obligations than read more from Wikipedia about some guy I've never heard of who died 50 years ago.
Surely you must recognize that this law violates the Berne convention and TRIPS.
The US can of course pull out of those agreements, but the loss of international IP protection on everything from drugs patents to software copyright surely doesn't seem like a well-conceived plan to knock Disney down a notch.
9 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] thread> “The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over.”
Yeah I call bullshit. This is much more of a “how dare you not push my narrative”.
IIRC, Sonny Bono (of the 1998 term extension act) was Republican, but he was a slight exception to the narrative that the Republicans are the party of finance and oil, while the Dems are the party of Hollywood and big tech. So Hawley's bill (a swipe at Hollywood and therefore at Dems) still fits the narrative.
If the bill passes, the early episodes of Star Trek and the early Beatles songs would enter the public domain around now. That would be cool, I guess.
If politicians were really against businesses getting political they would ban corporate campaign donations and political funding contributions.
Here are some companies who got political by funding Josh Hawley's election campaign: Jones Financial Companies, Diamond Pet Foods, Hunter Engineering, Orscheln Group, Hallmark Cards, Bayer AG, Charles Schwab Corp, and Russell Stover Candies.
What do you think they expect to happen to them?
Left wing radical Marxism is already played out, just wait and see.
My observation is that companies often get involved in politics. And don't expect politicians to react negatively, contradicting your argument.
The missing connection in your argument is "companies shouldn't disagree with powerful politicians who expect fidelity to their cause."
That's got the proper amount of both-siderism to it, as it includes T.R.'s trust busting too.
T.R. was such a left-wing radical Marxist, with his FDA, stronger ICC, and pro-natural conservation attitude.
But hey, let's talk about the bill.
1) Who agrees with the bill? Hawley doesn't even have a co-sponsor.
2) The bill violates the Berne Convention ("sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it has not been shown within 50 years after the creation."), which we are signatory to.
3) The hyperfocus on Disney violates the Berne three-step test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test) which says exceptions 'cannot "do disproportional harm to the rights holders"'), so would also violate TRIPS Agreement, which we are signatory to.
You think Disney won't bring a lawsuit to the WTO? Or won't win? I wonder what trade sanctions might be placed on the US should Hawley's temper tantrum become real law.
If it's all bark and no bite, then it's performative.
I would rather discuss how this proposed law affects our international copyright treaty obligations than read more from Wikipedia about some guy I've never heard of who died 50 years ago.
Surely you must recognize that this law violates the Berne convention and TRIPS.
The US can of course pull out of those agreements, but the loss of international IP protection on everything from drugs patents to software copyright surely doesn't seem like a well-conceived plan to knock Disney down a notch.