Disney's reign of terror

It's over. For now, anyway.

2019 is only a few days old, but the new year is already a happy one for appreciators of early jazz. And classic film. And 20th century literature.

That's because with the arrival of the new year came the sunset of a 1998 congressional act that for 20 years delayed the expiration of the copyrights of works that were otherwise scheduled to enter the public domain. What that means to you and me: An expansive treasure trove of music, film, literature and other works of art produced in 1923 now, finally, belongs to all of us.

That includes early recordings from such New Orleans jazz legends as Jelly Roll Morton, Louis Armstrong, King Oliver and Sidney Bechet -- and that's just the start.

Now that the clock is ticking on Mickey again, we can all rest assured that Disney will figure a way to put another stopper on public domain within the next few years. But for now, this is nice.

Once upon a time, US copyright only lasted for 28 years with one eligibility for renewal.  In a saner world this would mean we'd be getting free access to 1963 and probably a little bit of 1991 this year. Theoretically this would mean "Blame it On the Bossanova" by Eydie Gorme and "Blame it On the Rain" by Milli Vanilli could be ours today.  

The best defense is belligerence

I'm starting to think maybe Sarah Palin really could be President. Because these days leadership is basically defined by making stupendous ignorance a virtue to rally around. And Palin has a special talent for this.

Government interest

Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling and said there's no problem with the First Amendment because copyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest." This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it shows a "substantial or important government interest." But that makes no sense. The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect citizens' interests against situations where the government's interests went against citizens' interests. It should never make sense to judge a First Amendment claim on whether the government has "substantial or important" interests.

Read that whole analysis if you really want to be upset about the fragility of your basic rights. And also keep in mind how often we've seen "substantial or important" government interests dovetail with those of BP, for example.