Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyperman1 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com