Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won’t happen again

 

Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn’t act

 

On January 1, 2019, every book, film, and song published in 1923 will fall out of copyright protection—something that hasn't happened in 40 years. At least, that's what will happen if Congress doesn't retrospectively change copyright law to prevent it—as Congress has done two previous times.

 

Until the 1970s, copyright terms only lasted for 56 years. But Congress retroactively extended the term of older works to 75 years in 1976. Then on October 27, 1998—just weeks before works from 1923 were scheduled to fall into the public domain—President Bill Clinton signed legislation retroactively extending the term of older works to 95 years, locking up works published in 1923 or later for another 20 years.

 

Will Congress do the same thing again this year? To find out, we talked to groups on both sides of the nation's copyright debate—to digital rights advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge and to industry groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. To our surprise, there seemed to be universal agreement that another copyright extension was unlikely to be on the agenda this year.

Why wouldn't copyrights and trademarks last forever? Or at least until the original company and those who they license to, are dissolved?

 

I'm also curious as to why design and utility patents are only good for 17-20 years. Is it to prevent monopolization?

 

I get it with things like pharmaceuticals. If someone invented a drug that cured cancer, they could charge whatever they want and when the patent is up, generics can flood the market and bring the price down, with the 20 years allowing the inventing company to recoup all of their money from R&D but in most cases, the duration of IP protection doesn't make much sense to me.

If Walt Disney hated Jews, maybe there's a good chance that the majority-Republican congress will act swiftly on this.

Why wouldn't copyrights and trademarks last forever? Or at least until the original company and those who they license to, are dissolved?

 

I'm also curious as to why design and utility patents are only good for 17-20 years. Is it to prevent monopolization?

 

I get it with things like pharmaceuticals. If someone invented a drug that cured cancer, they could charge whatever they want and when the patent is up, generics can flood the market and bring the price down, with the 20 years allowing the inventing company to recoup all of their money from R&D but in most cases, the duration of IP protection doesn't make much sense to me.

 

the general theory of patents is to allow the inventor to monopolize and profit on the product in order to recover research costs.  after the set number of years competitor can come in to make it better for consumers.  at least that's my memory of business law.

^ The theory behind the copyright is that after a while they should be returned to the public domain for the general public to use. The copyright is supposed to benefit the creator and even his immediate descendants or heirs. Once you get to the 3rd or 4th generation, those heirs do not have the same connection to the work in question so the theory is why should they benefit. It is similar to the estate tax in a way but based on slightly different theory

 

I'm also curious as to why design and utility patents are only good for 17-20 years. Is it to prevent monopolization?

 

 

 

When Nintendo Famicom (the Japanese NES) turned 17 in The Year 2000, clone systems appeared immediately. In 2007 when the Super Famicom (SNES) patent expired, boom, out came Retro Duo. 2013 was five years ago yet an N64 clone system is nowhere to be found since multi-game N64 emulation is still terrible after nearly 22 years of work.

Patents are only 17 years because the theory behind that is that we do not like monopolies and like to have competition. At the same time, there is a balancing act to reward the innovator and prevent bigger, more capitalized companies from stifling the innovator and putting them out of business when they are just getting started. The 17 year patent gives the innovator a head start to try and capitalize on their innovation before the rest of the world does.

It seems that the only form of IP you can protect in perpetuity by re-filing, is a trademark. As long as you're actively using it and providing a Declaration of Use every 5 years.

 

If all of Disney's characters are trademarked in addition to copyright (and I'm pretty sure they are,) it seems to me that not only would their merchandise continue to be protected  (trademarks include logos and names - including their characters, names, titles) but that a good case could be made against an unauthorized manufacturer and distributor of their media materials, capitalizing on use of their trademarked names and logos in said media.

 

I just emailed Disney's anti-piracy legal department and gave them a link to this thread, asking them to make an account and shed light on this. That would be awesome if they responded.

 

 

 

I'm also curious as to why design and utility patents are only good for 17-20 years. Is it to prevent monopolization?

 

 

 

When Nintendo Famicom (the Japanese NES) turned 17 in The Year 2000, clone systems appeared immediately. In 2007 when the Super Famicom (SNES) patent expired, boom, out came Retro Duo. 2013 was five years ago yet an N64 clone system is nowhere to be found since multi-game N64 emulation is still terrible after nearly 22 years of work.

 

Wow.

 

https://segaretro.org/Unlicensed_Mega_Drive_clones

 

Look at all these unlicensed knock-offs of my favorite console. Some of them even say "Sega."

 

I'm guessing that happens in countries that choose not to honor/enforce international IP or weren't part of any international agreement? It doesn't even seem like China, our biggest trade partner, enforces any agreement we have regarding IP rights. You see knock-off Range Rovers and such, hitting their market with the latest body style and for 1/3rd of the price, the same year that the 'real' car hits the market. North Koreans have sleek smart phones that look identical to iPhones with a graphic interface that basically combines the best features of iOS and Android. I think they're getting them from China.

Why wouldn't copyrights and trademarks last forever? Or at least until the original company and those who they license to, are dissolved?

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the 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."

 

So the idea that copyrights and patents only last “for limited times” has existed from the beginning.

Patents are only 17 years because the theory behind that is that we do not like monopolies and like to have competition. At the same time, there is a balancing act to reward the innovator and prevent bigger, more capitalized companies from stifling the innovator and putting them out of business when they are just getting started. The 17 year patent gives the innovator a head start to try and capitalize on their innovation before the rest of the world does.

 

Just fyi, patent term in the US has been 20 years from filing since 1995 (barring any patent term adjustments or extension).