Thread by @textfiles

It was unfair for me to point to the fake-kerfuffle of a suggestion by some dude on twitter that Copyright last 30 years and the resulting melee-of-ignorance that would inevitably cause on all sides as people chewed over the consequences. There's several facts some don't know.

First, copyright has changed in term multiple times over the centuries in the US. Right now, it is Life-of-Creator+70 years or Life-of-Creator+90 years if it's owned by a corporate entity at the end.

This is goddamned ridiculous. If you think it's not you're a coconut.

Quick review. In 1790 it was 14 years. In 1830, that became 28 years. We also added a way for a copyright owner to file for an extension of copyright. We have massive books at the Library of Congress with listings of people/entities who paid for and applied for those.

Then came 1976.

So, in 1976, using the now-familiar and often-cited Something Must Be Done flag, a whole bunch of changes to the nature of copyright came into being. An entire new generation of copyright lawyers were born. It was Feast Day. October 19, 1976 should be a holiday for these people

Again, we're now in the mystical middle ages of people's memories, but before 1976, copyright was something you decided to do. You made your thing, and you or your agent/hiring firm went "hurrah, a thing. let's copyright it" and you filled out a form and mailed it in. You chose.

Not after! Ever since 1976, every single thing made, of any sort, by anyone, is automatically copyrighted. In contemporaneous language, that means: Copyright Machine Goes Brr

What was once a somewhat scarce and maintainable registry became, instead, an incalculable mess of automatic everything. Remember what I said about Feast Day? IP battles went from judge going "Well, let's see the registration" to "My client SUPER SUGAR ON TOP PROMISES IT IS THEM"

Also, the copyrights of 1976 were notably extended because (as most people know) this affected Disney and Disney and others fought to ensure Mickey Mouse stayed in copyright. So suddenly we went from 28 years + 28 year extension to LIFE OF AUTHOR PLUS 50 YEARS" for EVERYTHING

After this car-crash honky-tonk took over the industry, everything else has been an echo of that, subject to the whims of highly-paying lobbies (since hey, you're making money hand over first controlling your perpetual lands).

Thus we get the Optimus Prime of copyright acts, the DMCA (1998) which extends even more of this in every direction. How awesome and high-quality is the DMCA? It has a special provision for boat hull designs. (Title V, Vessel Hull Design Protection Act)

There's also an "exemption" effort, the most Sisyphean of rules, where every three years, a new potential ruling is made for potential exemptions. It is designed to make good people fight like mad for reasonable exemptions, only to see them go poof almost immediately.

DMCA also has the famous 230 protection scheme, which is probably the greatest example of "If you let the morons grab the mic first in an argument, that argument is ruined". 230 was a rare bright light in the darkness.

My point is, if you went to most people and said "Hey. When you make a thing, you pay a small fee, and you get back a clear note you are copyrighted, and then in 28 years, you can extend it another 28 years", most people would think that reasonable, wouldn't they?

We lived under that regime for 180 years and did pretty tootin' well. So I know facts are boring and twitter is like drinking bacon fat in the desert but this is where the arguments should be, if any.

Also, as I said before, multiple major changes to copyright this year are in the works and it is going to get VERY TERRIBLE so hold onto your underroos.

Spoiler.

Again, sorry about pointing out the dumb argument guy.

Oh, and before I get quote-tweeted to death by lawyers going "sigh, another normie trying to describe our thing"; well, your thing is now something nine-year-olds are terrified of so guess it's everyone's thing nowwwwwwwww

A few people are sending in corrections on this length and that number and a few ideas of How This All Happened, and that's fine. More light, less heat, thanks

One point of order, too: If you're a Non-US person in this convo (which is very VERY US-Centric), and you don't know about the US Lobbying Industrial Complex, definitely look that up. It's like trying to understand Phantom of the Opera without knowing what an Opera House is

Only one person mentioned how 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, not DMCA. Now there's two, including me.

WHERE'S MY EDIT BUTTON JACK