15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse copyrighted. Will they do it again?
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it.
If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No.
You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.
The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committ...
The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" -- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work.
Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years.
Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.
That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.
The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this.
Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.
And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion:
To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.
There are countless opportunities for me every day to engage in risk free petty theft, yet I don't. Why don't I? It isn't fear of the law, since I have no fear of being caught, and it isn't fear of reprisal since, again, I have no fear of being caught.
No, I think the reason why I don't steal, even when I could, probably has something to do with the same underlying basis of all those "don't steal" laws. I mean, is it a coincidence that I, and those long dead lawmakers, both think that I shouldn't steal? I don't think the existence of the law has created in me this aversion to stealing either. I could cite for you countless examples where the law and I agree to disagree. It's neither fear nor respect of the law that keeps me (and I suspect, most people) from stealing.
well... yeah. If not born into a society with established laws, there would be nothing engraining this idea that you may not take something somebody else is "using".
Said another way, if you define "government" as people agreeing on a rule, then no, property rights cannot exist outside of government. Or if they did, they would have no basis in reality so they're not worth thinking about. However, if you define "government" as a certain way of enforcement, or a way of codifying laws, or really any particular construct, then in that case property rights obviously do exist outside of government.
What Hobbes is saying is a bit more involved than that. He is saying that because people's nature (and self-interest in particular) mean that they will, in practice, not acheive universal agreement, you can't, in practice, have order without an entity which can enforce compliance with the general-but-not-universal agreement and punish defection from it, because otherwise even a general agreement will devolve into chaos. (He might have been more succinct and made reference to the "Tragedy of the Commons", except that that term wouldn't be coined for a little over three centuries after Hobbes wrote Leviathan, and even the historical events that motivated the term were still.)
As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false.
For example, there is no one common power that controls all American and British people. Yet Americans and British people travel to each other's homes, have relationships with each other, trade with each other, and sometimes even move from one country to another. All of this is done peacefully, with no common power that controls both sides of the equation. Same thing with relationships between Swiss people and Japanese people, or Chinese people and Egyptians, or Brazilians and Indians, or anybody else that you choose.
If Hobbes' idea was true, wouldn't the relationship between two average people that have no common power be rather warlike rather than the mutually beneficially peaceful relationships that we see every day?
Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to a power (the laws of the country they're visiting).
And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries themselves, and of course the history of international relations is full of countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right?
Right?
Have you read much history?
A prime example of Bastiat's reasoning skills and demonstration of how much respect should be afforded him.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
"Possession", as a concept used by anarchists, has always seemed rather poorly defined (surprise surprise), but if we are willing to permit some very slight anthropomorphism, there are non-human examples of the recognition of a concept that we could reasonably call "possession". It seems therefore that whatever "possession" may be, it is a concept that can exist in the absence of governments.
Enforcing a monopoly requires the application of violence to maintain it. In the absence of violence, anybody may compete.
Physical property rights, as an example, exist at all times in the absence of force. To physically take something from someone you must use violence in one form or another. That ownership is not granted by the government, it's granted by my having acquired it without using any form of violence to get it, and you must take the thing from me to change that.
The government doesn't guarantee I'll always own my property, they provide no guarantee to a monopoly over my car. A thief can come and steal it, and I may never see that car again. The government will not then replace it. The government provides justice, not property guarantees.
But using a vague definition for government like "resources which most of society recognizes to be under the rightful possession of a specific individual or group and for which most of society expects attempted trespasses to be met with violence from the possessor or people serving the interests of the possessor" and a vague definition for (at least modern Western) government like "the organizations which are funded primarily by taxation and which have the sole legal authority to make and implement policy," both of which I think line up with most people's everyday definitions, I would say that property predates government and can easily be conceived of in modern times without government.
If I own a car, I may have a "monopoly" over a subsequent sale of that particular car, but it's an extremely limited market with n = 1. And the rationale for protecting my property rights here isn't just theft of my car would deprive me profits from resale, but that it would deprive me of actually using the car and driving around.
In contrast, intellectual property concerns the control of a particular market where n > 1. Copyright isn't necessary to protect my ability to use a particular copyrighted work -- I can still read my book, write sequels, etc. even if someone infringes. Rather, the rationale for copyright is to enable me to capture 100% of the profit from any market for my copyrighted work -- i.e. a monopoly.
Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that?
You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.
Expressing the value of allowing intellectual property rights to expire does not require arguing that physical property rights ought to expire.
but even assuming that it does, it only works when there's a huge empire providing thousands of jobs themed around a work, right? so how do you codify the difference between Mickey and $random_forgotten_book_from_1920, from which releasing copyright could only be a good thing for the economy?
Why give someone else a crack at it? There are a lot of excellent reasons, here's two: 1) Because competition is always a good thing in the private sector. It has been demonstrated constantly throughout free market economic history that competition generates greater innovation, as opposed to the lack of competition. 2) It's a massive net benefit to a nation's culture to have copyrights expire such that the public can own its history (and individuals can then do with it as they please), of which characters such as Mickey Mouse are a part.
On the other hand, I completely agree we should own our history. For example, the purported owners of "Happy Birthday" are pure rentiers. They have no brand to protect and add no economic value. The copyright on that song should have expired long ago.
I think a good compromise is "use it or lose it." A copyright expires after some period of disuse by the holder. At that point it can be said to have passed into history, and is owned by everyone.
Also, real/personal and intellectual property differ enough that I don't think the analogy from your second paragraph is particularly instructive. For example, with physical property I can't think of any obvious analogs to remixes and derived works.
But they probably wouldn't be less motivated by longer expirations.
Disney would have had far less material to lift.
If expirations were shorter, say 20 or 30 years after the publication of a work, wouldn't creators be motivated to keep creating so as to not suddenly lose a stream of income?
Sure they would be: properties that are valuable more than a handful of years after they are first published are rare enough that the chance of achieving that is a minor factor in motivation, but the existence of such properties under extended protection both reduces the potential for and reduces the market value of new works, reducing the motivation for new creators more than the slight chance of producing such a work increases it.
It's nice that children and hobbyists can read and perform Twelfth Night without paying gratuitous royalties to a company that is now completely unrelated to the long-dead William Shakespeare. It would be nice if, in 3013, children and hobbyists could read and perform The Lady's Not For Burning without paying royalties to a company that is by then completely unrelated to Christopher Fry.
Plus, if you then again allow others to build on the more recently "invented" stuff, then you get even more ideas and creations, as a society, which is why there's this "agreement" that copyright works should go into public domain. But corporations, who don't invent anything themselves, want to be able to exploit those works forever.
This is why I support Sweden's Pirate Party's idea [1] to limit copyright to 5 years, and then allow creators to extend it every 5 years up to 20 years, for a fee each time, because then you wouldn't end up with problems like these, where the vast majority of works become abandonware that nobody can use for almost a century to at least remix them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-ho...
Watch these videos, and then hopefully it will make it more clear:
This is what happens when you confuse objects in the physical world with those in the information world.
Physical rights don't expire because it entails deprivation of use. But copyright expiration doesn't eliminate your right to create, distribute, or sell -- it simply extends these capabilities to others.
Also, I'm confused why this is an "economic value" issue. I was under the impression copyright existed solely for the benefit of the public, "to promote the sciences and useful arts" as I read.
You've got more insight than I do, so further elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
The purpose of "intellectual property" protection is a valid point, though. I think that the greatest victory of the pro-"intellectual property" is simply calling it "intellectual property", thereby tainting it with thousands of years of philosophy of what "property" is.
Adverse possession, right of conquest, property taxes, and estate taxes are a few of the ways in which physical property rights expire.
No, but real (dirt) property rights are usually taxed. How about an escalating tax on older copyrights?
The point of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works (called content these days). If Disney can just keep making money off Mickey Mouse forever and use that money to crowd newer ideas out of the market, I would argue that we're significantly poorer as a society than if new and original creations were being made.
DJs should be free to remix pop songs as they like and everything is gravy, but if a DJ dares remix another DJ's work then suddenly we are a poorer society? Absurd.
I have no idea how your second paragraph relates to my comment.
What? I have absolutely no idea what this is suppose to mean and/or refer to.
The second section of my comment is pointing out that Disney remixes, yet you seem to think remixing Disney would be a symptom of some sort of awful state of society. If remixing evidences that, then why do we need further evidence of it? Remixing Disney media would just be continuing in the same vein as Disney.
Disney can't even exist without remixing earlier works.
The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that, in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the "progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.
If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.
So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason to believe in limiting copyrights.
I ask because the general statement of "use my ... however I wish" is obviously way too broad; I can't use my computer to commit fraud, or my printer to print dollars. More generally, I would say the distilled basic property right is to use my property in a way that does not violate anyone else's rights or break any laws.
The most basic property right is the right to exclude others from the use of your property, and in that sense, if we accept that "intellectual property" is property, then it seems to apply there too.
I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner's comment and felt instinctive disgust followed by grudging admiration -- the idea there is really messing with my while framework for thinking about copyrights.
It's not just property rights that copyrights interfere with, of course, there are also other basic fundamental rights being diminished. Freedom of speech is an obvious example.
This isn't an argument against all copyright. It's merely pointing out that there's a tradeoff, and every now and again we should ask "is it worth it?"
Uhm, no. Like many of rayiners "arguments" it's authoritative rhetorical bullshit. He frames the question, makes some assertions that aren't backed up and leaves the burden of proof on the reader. If you look closely you'll find he's not even taking much of a position on the subject. So even if you manages to disapprove what he's claiming you'll end up in a discussion you can't win since he's the one making up the rules as you go along. Actually this is quite similar to how copyright keeps getting extended.
Like all property rights, copyright is a socially constructed privilege to exclude others from certain actions, and, like all property rights, every copyright interest limits everyone else's freedom, including the freedom to derive utility from their property.
This is a very real tradeoff with copyright, but it is exactly the same kind of tradeoff that exists with all property rights, not something special to copyright vs. other property rights.
This is wholly wrong. There are entire classes of good where marginal consumption does not dilute the value of average consumption. The purpose of copyrights is to subsidize (temporarily) the production of such goods. This under the theory that they would not otherwise be (or only inefficiently) be produced. Certainly mickey mouse needs no further encouragement...extending DIS an ongoing franchise is pure and simple pork-barrel-politics to the governing class that relies on the media (eg, ABC a DIS subsidiary) to get elected (and/or the electoral votes of Florida).
Isn't the scope and intrusion worth considering?
(I ignored the part on economic theory because first of all 1) you're likely wrong on your assumptions 2) none of it is applicable to lawmakers as they exist today, they are not science-, but ideology-driven)
Justifying intellectual property through the analogy of physical property is flawed, as they are inherently different beasts.
That said, your core argument is entirely spot-on - our economic framework that is accepted in policy circles doesn't see the economic value of letting copyright expire. I'd also suggest that policymakers are rarely (if ever) dispassionate and unbiased; at the end of the day, their view of the world is closely aligned with the view of those who keep them in office through campaign contributions and whatnot. It doesn't even have to be as explicit as bribery - simply the fact that Congressmen (out of necessity) run in circles with wealthy people who have an interest in preventing the expiration of copyright is enough to color their opinions and views in favor of that particular position, even if they never knowingly accept a bribe.
You seem to be confusing trademarks and copyright. Disney characters are in fact protected in perpetuity as long as Disney continues to use them commercially.
The copyright question is the question of whether Disney can keep control over specific works like Steamboat Willie, or whether they will start to enter the public domain.
> the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire
Nonsense. The definition of copyright is a legal monopoly on the production of copies of a work. It has long been understood by economists that monopolies legal or not, incentives rent-seeking and disrupt a markets natural trend towards natural prices.
All kinds of physical property rights do expire -- leasehold interests, life estates, etc., are, after all, property rights -- though most common subjects of physical property have some person somewhere holding a "root" set of property rights which are held in fee simple and thus do not expire in the most simplistic sense (though many items of physical property have ad valorem taxes assessed on their value, which is essentially a means of property rights gradually expiring; this is particularly common with real property.)
The reason fee simple ownership as the general norm is the case is largely that the capitalist class, as it was developing and feudalism was declining, amassed sufficient resources and influence to direct government to further enhance the capitalist class's ability to continue to amass resources and influence by reforming property to favor that situation.
First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process.
But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.
An alternative could be compulsory licensing of unregistered works that are beyond a given age. So that if someone uses it, and no one comes by to claim it is theirs, then all is good. But if a copyright holder shows up (and can prove ownership), then appropriate fees can be transferred at a standard rate.
All that said, I'm not holding my breath.
Honestly though, I can't imagine a future in which Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ever enter the public domain.
I disagree with that argument, but I could imagine some folks in congress letting that be what compels them.
There is certainly a compelling argument to make for preserving something that generates a lot of wealth. Not so much for preserving something that merely transfers a lot of wealth to an already very wealthy business.
Yes, it would be very hard for Disney to exist if they lost IP rights to the likeness of Mickey Mouse, but they won't, because he's trademarked, and trademark exists to ensure that companies retain rights to the branding and art crucial to their operation and the identification of their business. Should Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain? I don't think anybody would argue that. But should the Steamboat Willie cartoons, a cultural landmark now nearing a century old, become common property? A lot more people would argue yes.
My outline here is probably lacking some accuracy and precision, because I'm not an expert. If there are any details I've missed, please do let me know.
I don't think this is necessarily true, but even if it is, surely they've had long enough to come up with something new to live off for a while?
Something like you get the first 30 years for free/cheap.
After 30 years you have to start paying at $1k/year but it goes up 30% per year.
1.3 ^ 30 = 2619 so you'd pay $2.6mm for another year in year 60 of copy protection
1.3 ^ 60 = 6864377 so Disney would have to decide if it was worth it to pay $6.8 billion (or more) every year to keep Mickey under copyright.
Even better if we could back-date it so that next year Disney has to cough up $40 billion or so to keep everything locked up.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain_Enhancement_Act
But it doesn't do anything to stop the infinite copyright of books or movies or music. There's no reason that I couldn't write a book and assign the rights to a corporation which could then pay $1/year on it for as long as the US continues to exist.
I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism that eventually forces copyrighted works into the public domain. And it should probably be less than a lifetime.
The copyright lobby, on the other hand, is a reliable bribe source every time they want something. So I'd expect an extension to just glide on through.
I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.
Maybe some folks would be okay with this, but I would much rather my creations be owned by no one after a certain period than that the government just exercises some form of eminent domain over my property to take possession of it.
At a minimum, this will allow abandoned copyrights to slide into the public domain.
1. The copying right would have a shorter term. Maybe go back to 28 years with perhaps one renewal term.
2. The derivative work right would have a very long term.
3. Fair use would be expanded to explicitly recognize things sampling, parody, and the like. (Yes, I know this would be tricky to do well).
I think this strikes a good balance between making cultural works readily available and affordable, and saving us from seeing a poorly animated Calvin and Hobbes selling breakfast cereal to kids in TV ads.
This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.
This is a rare case where law of headlines fail.