About one week ago, republican Senator Josh Hawley(MO) proposed a bill to limit copyright protections to about half of their current duration. As of writing, copyright protections last up to 95 years, the proposed bill would limit them down to 56 years. The more interesting part of this bill, however, is the part where it will apply retroactively to copyrights that were made before the bill if it were put into action. This is interesting because of the US’ general policy of staying away from retroactive laws, even going as far as to have ex post facto laws be specifically labeled as unconstitutional. However, this law has a very small chance to pass due to how there are currently larger issues at play. To add some general background on copyright, it is stated to protect “original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture”(copyright.gov). Copyright also protects unpublished works if they meet other criteria.
The main target of this bill is Disney and more specifically their copyright over the character of Mickey Mouse. Disney has extended their copyright over the character, as well as copyright protections as a whole in two cases. They first lobbied to have it extended in 1976, and then did so again in 1998. The conflict between Disney and the republican party began when Disney stood openly against Florida’s “Don’t say gay” laws and later stopped sending political donations to the state of Florida. This is involved in a larger idea with the republican party to limit the power and influence of corporations that are “pandering to woke activists”(Sen. Josh Hawley). It’s important to distinguish, however, that according to “deadline,” the bill would not “ include a provision to delay implementation for up to 10 years. ” Another interesting detail about the bill is that it does not explicitly target Disney, but it only applies to “entertainment and theme park companies with a market capitalization of more than $150 billion”(deadline). This type of roundabout targeting of certain companies seems to apply that the bill would not pass if it were full copyright reform.
The main point of interest for me, however, is how senator Josh Hawley is a potential contender for the 2024 presidential election. This bill has attracted more media attention than most small bills like it, but the decision to target Disney specifically definitely contributed to its press coverage. This could be a potential play from the senator to make their name more recognizable or to begin to make himself more well known before the election.
Questions:
1. Do you think that this copyright bill could pass in the current senate?
2. Do you believe that the retroactive application of this bill sets a concerning precedent for future bills to hit the senate floor?
3. Do you think that this could help the senator make a name for themselves before the upcoming 2024 election cycle?
Sources:
https://deadline.com/2022/05/disney-copyright-josh-hawley-copyright-1235020896/
4 comments:
I think there’s little chance this bill would pass in the senate. First off, it’s clearly unconstitutional. Copyright law is clear, and while some parts of it are open to interpretation by judges, such as what is fair use, things like timelines are not ambiguous. Changing copyright protections after they’re granted is ridiculous for multiple reasons. First off, when one files for a copyright, they pay fees and so essentially one is making a contract with the government for protection of their works for a certain period of time. There are no provisions in that contract that I’m aware of that allow the government to change it after the fact. Changing the timeline is clearly an ex-post facto law, which is unconstitutional. I don’t think this bill will set much of a precedent for other bills as I think it is kind of an outlier. I think it is a clear “punishment bill”, in other words, this senator is trying to punish Disney for its political actions, which corporations have a right to under citizens united. Additionally, this bill would have definite economic affects as it would remove some incentive for the creation of original works as it would have less protection by the government.
I think democrats and the president will block this bill from ever passing, though I do see some democrats choosing to agree with the sentiment and not the bill. I agree that retroactive laws are a bit goofy as said above and I think that trying to figure out which intelectual properties are in public domain if this law were to be past maybe a bit too much work for very little, I think this bill would probably be better taken if it wasnt retroactive and just affected any ideas produced and protected after a certian year. I do think that the orgins of this bill comming from the republican parties attempts to harm disney is kinda werid considering the Republican party has always supported buisnesses and treating them as if they have rights such as speech. Now they want to punish a buisness for using speech. kinda seems a bit hypocritical to me. But I do think Disney is a bit too big as a company and should be punished anyways regardless of how it comes to be. I think Disney should feel some kind of punishment for not caring about America enough as they should and need to stop selling out to the Chinese government.
I agree with Thomas and Pascal that the retroactive aspect of the proposed bill is unconstitutional and would not get much support from Congress. Regardless of its party affiliation, it is simply a bad proposition. I mean, if it is shortened to 56 years, some content creators would live long enough to see their content become part of the public domain. That seems unfair. Obviously, they cannot create a law that says "deal with it on a case by case scenario," but they should keep it at 95 years so issues like that do not arise. I don't think this will set a precedent for future bills, because precedent tends to only matter with laws. This isn't a law yet and probably won't become one. To my knowledge, Senator Hawley is very conservative. He seems more conservative than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is much more popular and won't need gimmicks like this to get red votes in 2024.
Here is a passionate and entertaining article about the bill: https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/10/23066030/hawley-copyright-disney-mickey-mouse
I think the copyright bill could possibly pass in the current Senate, since it is pretty evenly split 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents who both caucus with the Democrats, but it would be unlikely given the bill originated as a spite towards Disney and the long lasting implications of the bill far outweigh the petty benefits, since it goes against originalism and ex post facto laws clearly outlined the Constitution. Going by traditional party beliefs Republicans would not vote this law through. I definitely agree that the retroactive application of this bill sets a concerning precedent for future bills, since it means the legislature is becomming more illogically political than it should be, as it’s less a matter of political and social beliefs, than of political alliance. I think it does definetly help the senator make a name for himself, but it’s more notorious than positive on both sides of the political spectrum.
Post a Comment