Many of you guys probably already heard about this petition to the U.S. Congress to abandon the policy of perpetual copyright extensions that end up benefiting a select few people (companies) at the cost of the public domain.
The proposal -- which I admittedly don't know much about -- is for a nominal fee to be charged for copyright terms to be extended. The classic example in this debate is Walt Disney's characters, who were originally released in the late 1920's and 30's, and have been a huge boon to the Disney Corporation in its marketing since then, keeping the Disney characters out of the public domain. If no fee is paid, then the copyright automatically expires (rather than being automatically extended).
Seeing as how the 1998 legislation was called the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, I submit that it is only proper that any such legislation to address this issue be called the Mickey Mouse Act.
Who's with me??? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course it should be changed. But online petitions aren't worth the lack of paper they're written on.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Mickey Mouse" is copyrighted.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Judge Scalia can sing along with all the big corporations....
M I C (see you in court) K E Y ( why? because we've got hundreds of lawyers on the payroll)
M O U S E
Why in hell is the Supreme Court a lifetime position again?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
To elevate the court from everyday political concerns.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What about the concerns and bias brought into their terms then? They are appointed by administrations that expect them to render judgments in favor of their views, after all. It also means that for years we had bigots on the court and that new idea that might not be popular will not be given a fair chance.
As a wild example, look at the debate over a Fetus possibly having rights. Old opinions on the issue and religous background will taint a judge's opinion (naturally). That's not always bad in and of itself, but having the same people make the decisions for 50 plus years will certainly lead to stagnation in many areas.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Your example would seem to work against the idea that the justices are beholden to the parties that select them. It is no secret that the Supreme Court today is by majority conservative, and yet Roe v. Wade has yet to be overturned.
Which isn't to say that not having the justices directly elected is necessarily a good thing, but it is designed to serve a nontrivial purpose.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
True, but the Supreme Court also upheld segregation and "Jim Crow" laws for decades and still upholds many restrictions and laws against gay couples.
My point is that times change while the same Supreme Court justices do not (at least not often).
On the other hand, their lifetime appointment allows them to (in theory only) sever political ties that would influence a judgement.
I think the position should be a lengthy one but not a lifetime appointment. Ten years sounds fair IMHO, as long as the appointments do not change in the same year (a rotation of one- occasionally two- justices being replaced per year would not be too disruptive.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yeah, that was one of my main ideas for my proposed list of constitutional amendments. I was thinking something like nine justices, appointed three at a time every three years for a nine year term, with no chance of reappointment. Or something.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That makes sense.....but would you vote for an ammendment proposed by someone calling themself "Omega" That's almost certainly asking for a super-villian to take over the world.
....mabye if you changed your moniker to "Ultron"? ...naaaa! Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I have no problem with copyrighted materials that are still in use. However, in the instance of stuff that no one has touched in years, that should be open for anyone to use once it hits the definition of public domain.
Put yourself in the shoes of those who created a comic character. You put all that creative process in to a character, creating a background and all those stories, only to have someone else come along and start using your hard work to make money?
I know I'd be one pissed off Muther Fucker.
Being able to make mention of a work is one thing. Even a parody isn't that big a deal, IMO. However, to outright "steal" someone elses work and profit from it is another thing entirely.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Put yourself in the shoes of those who created a comic character. You put all that creative process in to a character, creating a background and all those stories, only to have someone else come along and start using your hard work to make money?"
Look at Mickey Mouse. How many complaints do you think Mr. Walt Disney is going to offer up if the rodent becomes public domain? Not a lot, I expect.
I don't think anyone wants copyright to end within a couple of years. But something shouldn't still be kept out of the public domain thirty-seven years after its creator has died.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, but think of his poor, impoverished relatives, who rely on the income from his estate... wait a minute....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)