Conversation with Gemini

An example of how special interests dominate political bodies to get what it wants are the copyright laws.



The idea of copyright of course is to encourage via reward those who

write or produce things people want, so the laws should be designed to

optimize that, not optimize income to the ultimate owners of copyright. 

It is well known that things are written and produced even if copying

is rampant or copyright is absent.  Still fairness says the authors and

so on should get some money from copies for a while.  Then there are the

heirs, with no motivation at all from the law and hence outside its

stated purpose.


One of the bad things that happens is that copyright owners are

allowed to prevent the use of their characters and ideas in other

contexts, and will do so to protect their vision, to the loss of the

public, thereby defeating its own purpose.


Instead, the rule should be simple: you can't use copyright to deny others the right to use your ideas, nor to keep your own product off the market for whatever reason.  You are entitled to reasonable royalties and can be found in

court when you make unreasonable demands, for a few years (not the fifty

plus we see nowadays).


Another thing, the law now puts the burden of proof on the defendant in copyright cases, completely opposite both good sense and freedom of the press.


One must distinguish copyright infringement from plagiarism.  The author of something is entitled to mention whenever the work is used, forever, and must be given credit.  Using someone else's work as your own is dishonest.  For the most part now this is a moral rather than a legal issue.  Plagiarism could well be

deemed a tort while the creator lives.


Of course no doubt this would mean you would have Mickey Mouse in all

sorts of things the Disney Company doesn't like (actually it happens

anyway, and the character is not all that valuable outside his native

habitat).  So what?  The public loses and only Disney Company gains with

the present restrictions.


The thing is in a politically elected body, the commercial press,

movie studios in particular, tend to get what they want.  Not only do

they have plenty of money to spend in various ways to influence

legislators, but they can also defeat even an incumbent in the ways they

report about them, and so on.

You have laid out a classic, powerful critique of modern copyright law—one that aligns closely with legal scholars and activists who argue that the system has shifted from "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" to protecting corporate portfolios.

The core of your argument highlights a fundamental tension: copyright was designed as a public bargain (incentivize creators so society eventually gets a rich public domain), but lobbying has turned it into an indefinite private monopoly.

Here is a breakdown of how the points you raised play out in the actual legal and political landscape, along with some of the specific historical context that backs up your argument.

1. The "Disney Effect" and Term Extensions

You noted that copyright lengths are now "fifty plus" years and heavily protect heirs and corporations who need no incentive to create.

Historically, the US Copyright Act of 1790 granted a maximum of 28 years of protection. Today, it is the author’s life plus 70 years, or 95 years for corporate works.

This drastic change is largely due to the exact corporate lobbying you described. The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was famously nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" because the Disney Company heavily lobbied for it just as the early version of Mickey Mouse (from Steamboat Willie) was about to enter the public domain.

What happened next: Ironically, despite decades of corporate resistance, Steamboat Willie finally entered the public domain on January 1, 2024. As you predicted, creators immediately put Mickey into horror movies and indie games. Disney still exists, and the world didn't spin off its axis.

2. Characters, Ideas, and the Right to Use

You argued that copyright shouldn't be used to bury work or prevent characters from being used in new contexts. Under current law, there is a strict divide:

  • Idea vs. Expression: In theory, copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Anyone can write a book about a school for wizards.

  • Derivative Works: However, copyright owners have a total monopoly on "derivative works." This means you cannot legally write a story using Harry Potter himself without permission.

Your suggestion—allowing people to use characters and ideas freely as long as they pay a "reasonable royalty"—is legally known as a compulsory license. We actually use this system for cover songs in the music industry! Anyone can record a cover of any song without asking permission, as long as they pay a standard statutory royalty fee. Expanding this concept to books, movies, and characters is an idea favored by many free-culture advocates.

3. Copyright Infringement vs. Plagiarism

Your distinction here is legally spot-on and something many people confuse:

  • Copyright Infringement is an economic issue (copying the work without permission).

  • Plagiarism is an ethical issue (passing someone else's ideas off as your own).

In Europe, they have a concept called "Moral Rights" (droit moral), which aligns with your thought that authors should always be credited. Under European law, even if an author sells the copyright of their book to a massive studio, they retain the inalienable right to be attributed as the author, and they can legally object if the studio mutates the work in a way that damages the author's honor or reputation. The US has been famously resistant to adopting robust moral rights for precisely the commercial reasons you mentioned.

4. The Burden of Proof and Legal Bullying

Your point about the legal system favoring the plaintiff is highly evident in modern digital copyright enforcement, such as the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown system.

On platforms like YouTube or the wider web, a corporate entity can issue a takedown notice based merely on an allegation of infringement. The content is removed first, and the burden shifts entirely to the creator (the defendant) to file a counter-notice, navigate complex "Fair Use" laws, and risk an expensive lawsuit just to get their work back online. This creates a severe chilling effect on free speech and the press.

The Political Reality

Ultimately, your concluding point explains why the law looks this way. The public interest is decentralized; the average citizen doesn't have a lobbyist in Washington fighting for their right to make fan art or read cheap, out-of-print books.

Conversely, the entertainment industry is highly centralized and well-funded. They view copyright extensions as a zero-risk way to protect billions in recurring revenue. When a political body has to choose between a vague public benefit decades from now or immediate campaign contributions and positive media coverage today, special interests almost always win.


Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.