Hardball with Mickey Mouse and Sen. Josh Hawley

 By Rich Kozlovich

On May 11, 2022 Ariel Zilber posted the article, Sen. Josh Hawley wants to strip Disney of copyright to Mickey Mouse, saying:

Walt Disney Co. could lose its copyright to Mickey Mouse if a top Republican senator has his way.  Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) proposed legislation Tuesday that would limit Disney’s copyright protection for the iconic cartoon rodent to 56 years.........At the time “Steamboat Willie” was released, Disney’s copyright for Mickey Mouse was protected for 56 years.  When the copyright was about to expire in 1984, Disney lobbied the federal government to pass the Copyright Act of 1976, which extended protections for 75 years.  In 1998, Disney again lobbied for an extension on its copyright, and the federal government obliged, granting it copyright ownership for 95 years.  The latest copyright reform is due to expire in 2024, and top GOP officials have stated they will not support another extension of copyright protections. 

 Hawley, with whom I'm totally impressed,  preened saying:

“The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over,” Hawley said in a statement. “Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists.”  “It’s time to take away Disney’s special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation.”

The article went on to hint at Disney's patty cake relationship with China, one of the biggest human rights violators in the world, so we need to get over any human rights claims they may put forward in their defense.  They played hardball with Florida's Governor DeSantis and stuck out.  Game over!  Now the piper will be paid.

In this piece on the subject by  Rob Quinn May 11, 2022, Senator Moves to Strip 'Woke' Disney of Copyrights, one of the quotes is: 

But intellectual property law experts say the bill is "blatantly unconstitutional" and would have no chance of becoming law even if Republicans controlled Congress, Variety reports. Under current copyright law, protection for corporate-owned works lasts 95 years after publication. Sarah Jeong at the Verge calls Hawley's bill "deeply unserious" and "an empty and cynical gesture meant for a future fundraising email."

Well, like so much horsepucky that comes from "experts", I have doubts Hawley's bill is unconstitutional, since the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the enumerated 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."  

Whether it will pass this Congress is another issue.  It won't!   And I don't think it would with a Republican Congress given the Republican party is pretty much bereft of a spinal cord, but that's a separate issue as to whether it's unconstitutional or not.  It isn't!  And Hawley saying "The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over", is horsepucky. 

So that's why I call Hawley's actions preening.  And again, I'm thoroughly impressed with Hawley, but, one of the totally indisputable truths I've discovered in my life is that people will always be people.  Recognize it, categorize it, coordinate it, collate it for future use, and then move on. 

However, I will say I have mixed feelings about copyright laws, which go back centuries to England, and as far as I can tell, those limitations came into being for the benefit of book sellers and printers, not the creators.  

On one hand I think those who create the art have a right own the art - forever - or sell those rights if they please, and then the new owners possess it - forever.  If I own a Rembrandt, I own it forever.  If I sell it, the buyer owns it forever.   

On the other hand, that's not the same as buying a book.  When you sell your thoughts they now become part of society, and if I buy your book, I own that book, and the thoughts therein become my property.  So to protect your rights to those thoughts copyright laws came into being.  In the U.S. it was claimed there needed to be limitations on the ownership of art, ideas, inventions, etc, in order to expand education and innovation to society.  

While there's some validity to that thinking, with the exception on ideas and inventions, I think there's a little bit of horsepucky there.  But we've been "groomed" to believe in copyrights, and their limitations, which are now cultural, so I can I'm inclined to believe society can live with them, as it has for centuries.  

With patent laws, especially involving pharmaceuticals, there's a real need for ownership rights and ownership parameters.  

I don't have a problem with the huge costs of drugs when they first come out because the research and development costs are staggering.  If they can't restore those billions, and then add more billions for more research and development, and make millions in profits to the shareholders of those companies,  there will be no products.  If there are no products, untold lives will be lost.  If a product exists, it saves lives, and when they become generic, they will save untold millions of lives over the following decades. But it must come into being first, and that takes money, a lot of money.

If you're a moral person, that emphasis on money probably disturbs you.  If you're a rational person you understand:  If there's no money there's no product.  Socialist nations have proven that over and over again.

But one of the things I don't like are the extensions and extension exceptions being discussed here.  If there are to be limitations that society finds acceptable, then those limitations apply across the board.  Not just involving big business.  Everyone, no exceptions and no extensions.