Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com