> Disney's attack on culture through the lobbying of copyright extensions
Nitpick: that should be "a copyright extension", not "copyright extensions". There have only been two copyright extensions that have affected Disney: the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
I haven't been able to find any evidence that they lobbied for the 1976 Act. Probably because there would have been no need for lobbying, as the 1976 Act had near universal support.
That's because it was a major overhaul of US copyright law, which went a long way toward making US copyright law compatible with the Berne Convention. (There was still a lot to do to actually allow the US to join the Berne Convention--those final changes were in the Berne Implementation Act of 1988).
I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.
> I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.
They've earned this reputation by lobbying successfully for copyright extensions more than any other company in history. They absolutely deserve harsh criticism for it.
> They've earned this reputation by lobbying successfully for copyright extensions more than any other company in history
As far as I can tell, they've lobbied once for a copyright extension (the 1998 Act).
Their copyright was also extended by the 1976 Act, but as previously noted, I can't find anything suggesting that they had any influence over that. The 1976 Act was the result of a revision effort that was started by Congress in 1955 to address the widely perceived problems of the 1909 Act. That effort included 35 separate studies into the problems with the 1909 Act.
That took about 5 or 6 years. Then there were 15 years of negotiation and compromise and drafting involving pretty much all interested parties. As far as I've been able to find, the only thing in the result of that which did not have widespread was the provisions involving cable television. Those stayed controversial all the way.
The narrative that Disney and/or other big corporate interests somehow pushed the 1976 Act through is just not at all supported by the historical record.
I have to admit, I am struggling to find facts to back up my argument. I could go on a tangent about trademark, and while it's related it doesn't defend my original point.
I suspect Disney had a huge role to play in lobbying for these laws, but thank you for pointing out that I actually have almost no facts to back up this claim (seriously, I love being proven wrong because it means I learned something).
Nitpick: that should be "a copyright extension", not "copyright extensions". There have only been two copyright extensions that have affected Disney: the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
I haven't been able to find any evidence that they lobbied for the 1976 Act. Probably because there would have been no need for lobbying, as the 1976 Act had near universal support.
That's because it was a major overhaul of US copyright law, which went a long way toward making US copyright law compatible with the Berne Convention. (There was still a lot to do to actually allow the US to join the Berne Convention--those final changes were in the Berne Implementation Act of 1988).
I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.