Hacker News Reader

Comment by codefreeordie | Hacker News Reader

This will never pass.

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.

View on HN

>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.

If anyone wonders what the industries are, they're Motion Picture and Video Industries (5121) and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (71).

https://www.census.gov/naics/

> I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems moderately dubious to me, but it might be constitutionally viable maybe.

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.

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.

Maybe that's the point. It becomes law then promotly getscthrown out again. So nothing changes but the politician claims he tried to do something.

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)

One can hope, right? I wonder what the story behind this is. Current copyright terms are ridiculous.

To make life difficult for 'Woke' companies where cartoon mouses rule, because they oppose his friends law against LHBTIQ+ people...

So doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? I'm still hoping that it passes.

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.

> it will never pass

I'll take the Patriot Act for $200, Alex

The Patriot act increased government power, so congress had an incentive to pass it.

This act does not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com