JUST IN: Hawley introducing measure to strip Disney of copyright protections

[In It to Win It]

Link to tweet

[blm]

1. That's insane.

[TheBlackAdder]

74. The Republicans speak of the First Amendment, but find ways to use gov't as a club to punish.

.



.

[SoonerPride]

2. Good luck with that.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. JHFC

Really? Can't go along with this. Do it to one - then every artist, writer, musician, producer, etc. etc. is fair game. My husband is a juried artist - not a big 'Walt Disney' world corporation - but what's his is his.

[PatSeg]

17. Of course he knows he can't do it

This is just another nutty republican photo op and the MAGA crowd eats it up. These clowns get screwier every day.

[FalloutShelter]

49. I too am a juried artist and a published author...Eff these people!

They create nothing, they live to inflict hardship and they are traitors. FTA!
Vote like your life depends on it... it just may.

[multigraincracker]

4. Would that take 60 votes in the Senate?

[In It to Win It]

8. I imagine it would

[underpants]

5. Did Nazi that coming

[BootinUp]

24. Lol. Nt

[Celerity]

39. superb

[underpants]

57. I stoled it.

[geardaddy]

62. Love it!

LOL

[NickB79]

6. Are corporations starting to realize Trumpers and insurrectionists are bad for business yet?

Hard to reconcile free market capitalism with fascism these days. They're going to have to make a choice where their campaign donations go

[Solly Mack]

7. SMH

[ZonkerHarris]

9. Copyright is in the 1st Amendment because Founders thought it was more important than gun ownership

[onenote]

30. Copyright isn't in the First Amendment.

Copyright protection derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which provides, in relevant part, that:

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The relationship between the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause is rather complicated, as evidenced by this discussion:

The Copyright Clause nominally restricts free speech by allowing for an author's monopoly to market his original work. The Court has recognized that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright. However, that the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment were adopted close in time reflects the Framers' belief that copyright's limited monopolies are compatible with free speech principles. [T]he Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.

The Court has noted on several occasions that the copyright law contains two important First Amendment safeguards: (1) limiting copyright protection to an author's creative expression of ideas, but prohibiting protection of ideas in and of themselves; and (2) permitting fair use of a copyrighted work in certain circumstances, including for purposes of criticism, teaching, comment, news reporting, and parody. These traditional contours of copyright protection have foreclosed heightened First Amendmebnt scrutiny of copyright laws.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1-5/ALDE_00000128/

[jmowreader]

69. No, Zonker. They thought it was WAY more important than that.

It was in the Constitution before the First Congress decided to add the Bill of Rights.

[ZonkerHarris]

71. I meant to say that but rushed my earlier dictated comment. Thank you!

[onenote]

77. By that logic, copyright protection was more important than free speech, religious freedom,

due process of law, the right of trial by jury, the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

And remember, copyright acts as a limitation on free speech by giving the creator of a work a limited monopoly over the copying, performance, etc. of that work.

[Captain Zero]

79. Darn I wanted to put Mickey Mouse on my next Birthday Cake.

Happy Cake Day !!

[andym]

10. GOP less the party of big business and more the party of the conservative Christian Right-Wing

Interesting times. Not to say there are certain powerful ultra-rich behind this-- but certainly not most of corporate America.

[Irish_Dem]

11. I suspect the corporations will back down and comply with the GOP demands.

Too much money at stake.

The corporations don't really care about human rights. Their goal is to make as money as possible.

[Demsrule86]

15. I don't think so.

[Irish_Dem]

37. I hope you are right.

[exboyfil]

16. Sanders and the other Democrats should support it though

Watch the GOP retreat from it. At the end of the day they are corporatists and this would hurt their overlords.

[Me.]

20. But Then Dems Would Be Stuck With It

and then be nailed by the two-faced cons

[TheRealNorth]

25. That's what the Fascists want...

Either be a part of our cabal or we will use the power of the government to crush you.

Right out of 1930's Germany and Italy.

[Tickle]

40. They already have backed down

Isn’t their silence deafening on Roe?

[Irish_Dem]

52. Some companies have announced they will pay for out of state abortions.

But not many.

[Tickle]

54. That's a nice benefit but

that’s not speaking out.

[obamanut2012]

51. lolololol

Disney sues daycares who have Disney decals on tehir walls. They are not backing down.

[Irish_Dem]

56. In an autocracy the oligarchs must conform to the will of the despotic rulers.

Or they lose their businesses or their lives.

It appears the US is going to follow the Russian model.

Americans have not yet wrapped their heads around what is in store for us.

[NickB79]

55. Back down over copyright violations being legalized?

Without that legal protection, companies cease to exist. It is MASSIVE to say the least.

Losing copyright protection is an existential threat to corporate America.

[cbabe]

12. Pot/Kettle: Hawley is copyright thief: Politico says to

stop using their photo of him raising his fist at the capital coup.

Hawley is defying the law and continues to use/steal the photo.

Every accusation is a confession.

[exboyfil]

13. I have a problem with the reason

but I agree that the extension on copyright they gave to all companies including Disney was wrong. Those creators are long since dead and their work should enter the public domain.

All companies would be impacted by this change and not just Disney. Hawley is an ass_e for the stated reason, but reducing corporate control over our cultural IP is not a bad thing.

"After lobbying from Disney, Congress passed a law in 1998 that extended copyright protections for corporations, giving them ownership for 95 years from original publication or 120 years from creation. The law was dubbed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act."

[Shipwack]

31. Came here to say this.

Disney deserves to lose its oldest copyrights, but not like this.

[pecosbob]

14. While I'm no advocate for corporations this would be so bloody unconstitutional it's ridiculous

[exboyfil]

18. Only if it is directed in this fashion as a threat

The policy is actually a good idea. The Restoration Act should never have been passed.

[pecosbob]

21. I consider local tax incentives being given to corporations to be a a race to the bottom

That being said, I'm not a lawyer, but a right enjoyed by all (corporations) cannot be revoked without cause. They walk into a courtroom and claim they want to take Disneycorps' copyrights away because they don't like something company executives said, they'll be laughed out of court.

For the record, I also disagree with current copyright law, but that's another issue.

[exboyfil]

27. The law is general in nature

It does impact Disney the most of course, and I guess a court could find its stated intent was a 1st Amendment violation. All other companies would be impacted by the same law that Hawley is proposing which is really just a rollback to the law prior to the popular Extension Act (I was shocked that there wasn't even a floor vote on this act - it appears to have been wildly popular by both parties). I may be wrong in being against it.

[onenote]

48. Actually, it targets two companies: Disney and Comcast/NBCUniversal

Here is the bill: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Copyright%20Clause%20Restoration%20Act.pdf

While it applies on a going forward basis to all copyright owners, it only applies retroactively to copyrights held by a company with a market capitalization of more than $150 billion and that is classified under North American Industry Classification System code 5121 or 71. Those codes apply to motion picture and video industries (5121) and the Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Sector (71).

While there are 70 companies with a market capitalization above $150 billion, only two of them are classified as code 71 or 5121: Disney and Comcast/NBC Universal.

The law surrounding the retroactive application of a law is complicated, but the courts cast a dubious eye at the arbitrary retroactive application of laws and there are no findings or other justifications offered for drawing a line that separates some copyright owners from others.

[exboyfil]

58. Discovery Warner isn't included

nor Sony Columbia, Paramount, & Amazon/MGM. Isn't that interesting.

Why the capitalization and code divide? Seems arbritrary. Amazon has greater market capitalization than $150B. Discovery Warner which was just spun off to about a $50B market cap (maybe they smelled something).

Sony market capitalization is got to be greater than $150B. National Amusement which controls Paramount also is huge (but private).

What about private companies that don't have a market cap number?

[onenote]

64. Sony's market cap is around $104 Billion.

[Beaverhausen]

65. Off topic, but its Warner Bros. Discovery

We at WB have had enough headaches with changes to the iconic name recently. This one is much better than what the last company tried to do to us.

[Beaverhausen]

19. Don't we have much more important issues to deal with?

fuck this asshole.

[Sympthsical]

45. It's all of a piece

The intent of DeSantis and Hawley is to chill corporations from supporting progressive social views.

This is just a different front in the same war.

[BootinUp]

22. Fascists gonna fascist. Nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. Hawley's motivation is fascist, but the bill itself ironically appears quite socialist

As it would move numerous copyrighted works and characters into the public domain.

[Ferrets are Cool]

23. Please hold my beer while I

[Eugene]

26. Make property rights dependent on your politics. Blatant authoritarianism.

Also clearly unconstitutional.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would strip “woke corporations like Disney” of special protections enabling companies to hold copyright material for decades.

The Copyright Clause Restoration Act would limit copyrighted material to 56 years and apply the new rule retroactively, meaning Disney and other companies could immediately lose some copyright protections if the law were passed.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3483021-hawley-introducing-measure-to-strip-disney-of-copyright-protections/

[Midnight Writer]

28. The GOP is the Party of Stunts. It is all they have.

[USALiberal]

29. I never understood why they can have Mickey Mouse last forever. See

[CrispyQ]

33. So the party of Big Business is going to turn on Big Business?

This could be fun.

[Skittles]

80. yes

BRING IT ON

[Baked Potato]

34. And then his donations rolled in. Nt

[uponit7771]

35. Gotta shut these mouthy corporations who like democracy down on a federal level cause ...

... who wants people choosing their pols ?! / sarc

[Fresh_Start]

36. this is GREAT news....it should remove big business from GOP sides nt

nt

[Fullduplexxx]

47. It wont ..corp america will cave

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. If this bill is about changing Disney's Public Domain protection, I'm for it...

But not for Hawley’s reasons.

Mickey Mouse was created in 1928; if it weren’t for Disney’s big dollar lobbying, Mickey, and his earliest films, would have passed into the public domain decades ago. Disney has been making millions on source material that was originally in the public domain (Snow White, Alice In Wonderland, etc), and now it is time to return the favor.

Most of Mickey’s earliest cartoons were only available briefly on a limited edition DVD set about 20 years ago, and have been unavailable since. Same with the Silly Symphonies. Only a few can be viewed on Disney+.

Walt has been dead for over 50 years- it’s time for Disney’s earliest characters and films to enter the public domain, just as other songs and films from the 20’s and earlier have been, and soon, those from the 30’s will be.

In Europe, music recordings over 50 years old entered the public domain until 2013; what happened in 1963? The Beatles released their first recordings (their very first single from 1962, Love Me Do/PS I Love You is in the public domain in the EU). The Beatles recordings are owned by Sony, whose lobbying pockets are as deep as Disney’s.

So, fuck Josh Hawley, but the public domain copyright laws need to be reformed,

[gratuitous]

43. This is a good recap

Thanks!

[Azathoth]

67. This. The fact the far far right is pushing this is the pinnacle of irony nt

[d_r]

42. How about that

Hawley said in a press release that “the age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over

[In It to Win It]

44. He says that in public and I'm sure he'll vote for the next giant corporate tax cut

[IcyPeas]

46. GOP is the party of revenge.

A page right out of Donald trump playbook

[Torchlight]

50. His lizard brains seems incapable of understanding the most basic of patent/copyright law

We get it, little gatekeeper-- your temper tantrum is good advertising to an idiot base, even if at the expense of established and just law.

Funny thing is, this (as well as last) election cycle, we've watched the GOP consciously push away big business when it interferes with their idiot base. Don't really take pretending to be an political insider to observe an obvious exploit with much greater than normal potential for returns.

[lindysalsagal]

53. Fine. We'll go after everything the GQP loves, too. It'll be a banana republic in a month

if companies know they're not protected by our laws. These people are dumber than a bunch of 3rd graders.

[Cracklin Charlie]

59. My Senator is so embarrassing.

Such a Nazi.

[elias7]

60. strip "woke corporations like Disney" of special protections

Punitive much? There should be some ethical code in Congress that reprimands this kind of behavior. I can’t decide if he’s a child or just an a**hole (probably both)

[Pas-de-Calais]

61. Disney newest Marvel villain will resemble him

[orleans]

63. i was never a big disney fan

and it drives me crazy when i'm put in the position to defend someone/something against douchebags like Qs or repukes.

hawley should just go fuck himself

[Azathoth]

66. Kind of a deceptive headline

Headline makes it sound like he's pushing some kind of almost-bill of attainder. Instead, he's just proposing that the special exceptions passed for companies like Disney be repealed.

Making the repeal retroactive is dicey, but it's still funny watching the far far right push anti-Big Business initiatives.

[onenote]

68. The bill is drawn in a way to target Disney

The retroactive repeal of the extended copyright terms would only apply to companies with a market cap over $150 billion. So it would apply to Disney, but not to Sony, Paramount, or Warner Bros.

[Azathoth]

75. Apple, Google, Verizon, Amazon, Comcast, AT&T all fit in that category too

Yes, the $150B is comically arbitrary and chosen to ensure Disney gets whacked, but it would affect cooyrighted content owned by dozens of companies, not just Disney.

[onenote]

76. Except that there is a second requirement

In addition to having a market Cap of more than $150 billion, the bill requires that the company either be assigned one of the following two codes under the North American Industry Classification System: 5121 (motion picture and video industries) or 71 (Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Sector) or engage in substantial activities for which one of those codes could be assigned.

None of the companies you mention except Comcast is assigned or could be assigned either of those codes. Whether Amazon would be the second requirement because of its ownership of MGM is unclear. But MGM, along with all of the other companies you mention -- except Comcast -- own significant libraries of copyrighted works of the vintage that would be impacted by the retroactive repeal of the Term Extension Act. For example, Amazon doesn't own any of MGM's movie titles that predate 1986 and therefore have at least two decades of protection left notwithstanding the retroactive repeal of the extension. On the other hand, companies like Sony, Paramount, and Warner, as well as numerous music publishers and book publishers have extensive libraries of older copyrighted material, but won't be impacted by the retroactive repeal.

[Eugene]

73. Hawley's press release only says "corporations like Disney" 6 times.

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-introduces-bill-strip-disney-special-copyright-protections

The bills retroactive provision applies only to companies with over $150 billion in market capitalization.

While that theoretically includes Amazon (MGM), the biggest practical effect would be on Disney.

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Copyright%20Clause%20Restoration%20Act.pdf

Hawley's getting religion on trust busting does not pass the straight face test.

[jmowreader]

70. I am predicting...

...that Disney is currently planning a new princess movie with villains that look very, very much like Republican politicians.

[IcyPeas]

72. Disney's legal department alone has 350 lawyers. /nt

[Initech]

78. What a colossal piece of shit!

And also fuck Fox News.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

81. Cheap ass stunt by a dumbass