Steve Forbes (notorious collectivist) damns Disney (staunch conservatives) copyright extension

Forbes ^ | 3/31/03 | Steve Forbes

[eno_]

Patently Good Idea

The Supreme Court recently ruled that congress' extending copyright protection for yet another 20 years does not violate the Constitution. The extension was pushed primarily by Disney, which didn't want any of its old Mickey Mouse cartoons entering the public domain. Now artistic works are protected for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years; for companies, 95 years. Maybe Congress should just be done with it and declare that a copyright is forever. Disney, of course, hasn't hesitated to help itself to characters or works in the public domain, such as Pinocchio, Cinderella and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.

The Disney situation is unusual. Only about 2% of copyrighted work between 1923 and 1942 continues to be exploited commercially. Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig has proposed a sensible compromise. Borrowing a page from patent law, wherein holders have to pay a fee every few years to keep their patents current, Lessig would apply that principle to copyrights: After a certain number of years, copyright holders would have to pay a nominal amount of money to maintain protection. If the holder didn't pay the charge for, say, three years, the work would go into the public domain.

Lessig, who has represented clients who tried to overturn the extension, points out that his compromise would still "make available an extraordinary amount of material. If Congress is listening to the frustration that the court's decision has created, this would be a simple and effective way for the First Branch to respond." He's absolutely right.

[eno_]

Yeah, it's just the commies that think copyright extesions are bad.

[Asclepius]

Yeah, it's just the commies that think copyright extesions are bad.

Not just "commies," precisely. But misguided people in general think copyright extensions are bad. Interestingly, the same people tend to believe in fairies, gray aliens, crop circles etc. I blame our public schools.

[wizzler]

Oh, don't worry -- plenty of the "conservatives" on this board think they have an inherent right to the creations of others.

[cgk]

I was thinking about this the other day. What ARE the "original" Disney movies? Lilo & Stitch? Dinosaur? Says a lot that everything else they made is "borrowed liberally" from "public domain."

[litany_of_lies]

I think the case for a copyright lasting FOREVER is weak.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a drug-company patent (I know, it's not a copyright) should eventually expire and become public domain-unless you think someone is entitled to monopoly profits forever.

What I'd like to know is why the estates and heirs of these copyright holders feel like they have an eternal right to the intellectual property of their predecessors, when they had nothing to do with creating it. Talk about creating an entrenched aristocracy with an entitlement mentality. Are we going to have Martin Luther King XII suing people for quoting from the "I Have a Dream" speech 200 years from now? Is that reasonable?

The shot that Forbes takes at Disney for taking public domain stories and turning them into copyrighted items is, IMHO, dead on.

And when did Steve Forbes become a collectivist?

[eno_]

Well, according to SOME people on FR, both Phylis Shalfly and Steve Forbes, (who have more conservatism in their little fingers than these Disney-brownnosing pseuds that bang the copyright-it-forever drum here on FR) have somehow gone wrong on this.

I don't think so. If you read the copyright clause, the purpose is clear: Get as much in the public domain as possible, as soon as possible.

As with commerce, RKBA, the Drug War, and other areas, we have strayed from the Founders' vision and are paying the price.

[xm177e2]

Come on, Walt Disney stole "Steamboat Willie" from some other guy who made a "Steamboat [some other name]" cartoon--he even wanted to use the same theme music from the earlier cartoon.

Why shouldn't Disney get special privileges to keep its copyrights forever: because it would violate the Constitution!

[xm177e2]

And when did Steve Forbes become a collectivist?

(that's sarcasm, he's making fun of people taking the left-wing side of this issue--forbes isn't collectivist and disney isn't conservative)

[Diplomat]

But misguided people in general think copyright extensions are bad. Interestingly, the same people tend to believe in fairies, gray aliens, crop circles etc. I blame our public schools.

But most are content to just ignore the intent or our founders and pretend otherwise.

SECTION 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power ... 8. 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:

I sure hope my life is limited to the period of years that Disney gets exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse.

[litany_of_lies]

Maybe the problem is that Disney's stuff doesn't represent a "useful art."

[litany_of_lies]

Thanks for the Constitutional reminder. I totally forgot that, and would prefer to defer to the Founders' wisdom whenever possible.

[Diplomat]

Got me there.

[eno_]

I would not put it past some weasel to get up in front of a judge and say "Your Honor, my client produces nothing but pabulum and drivel. Clearly the useful arts,especially as the Founders envisioned them, would never benefit from my client's works. And therefore the copyright should run to perpetuity."

[Billy_bob_bob]

What is infuriating about our current copyright laws is the sheer volume of great material (old movies in particular) that are effectively kept out of the public eye forever. Have you seen "Carolina Cannonball" or "Valley of the Eagles" lately? These are movies that NOBODY has seen for over fourty years, but God forbid someone should make a copy on videotape and sell it. That would be "irreparable damage" to the copyright holder, the same holder who refuses to distribute the film in question, and also refuses to let anyone else see it. Isn't that special?

Everybody involved with making these films has been dead for years, but someone, somewhere, owns the rights and refuses to let anyone else see these titles. Now, if the registered owners want to distribute these titles, fine, more power to them. But what almost always happens is that they don't release the titles, and nobody else can touch them either.

Oh, and "public domain"? Forget it. The lawyers have this subject so cocked up that nobody in their right mind will go near it anymore. For example, say the copyright on a film has lapsed. Now it's public domain, right? Wrong. The screenplay is copyrighted as well, the movie is a "derivative work" of the screenplay, and is therefore covered under copyright until Hell freezes over. Sure, you can fight it if you want to. How much money do you have to spend on the case?

The bottom line is that we are all being deprived of our movie heritage, since most of these old movies are rotting in vaults. But hey, you can catch the latest "bestiality, homosexuality, and treason" feature being shown at your local multiplex. Enjoy!

[J. Byron]

"Well, according to SOME people on FR, both Phylis Shalfly and Steve Forbes, (who have more conservatism in their little fingers than these Disney-brownnosing pseuds that bang the copyright-it-forever drum here on FR) have somehow gone wrong on this."

see this page: http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/briefs/index3.html

JB says Happy Birthday!