That's better than nothing, but since it was pushed so aggressively before, it can as well be pushed backwards the same way.

At this point, I think the only way copyright terms could be reduced is a Constitutional amendment (not going to happen).

No. Copyright is enabled by the main text of the Constitution, not an amendment; the specific terms are simply acts of congress. The one tricky thing you'd run into --- besides the fact that there isn't public support for a radical change in copyright --- is treaty obligations. But, like, we can just break treaties.

>But, like, we can just break treaties.

The USA might get away with it, but smaller countries likely can't.

Were increases considered constitutional amendments? If they could happen, then what's the problem to revert it?

Previous copyright extensions were not constitutional amendments. Decreasing the length of new copyright terms could be done the same way, without any need for an amendment.

Reducing the length of existing copyright terms might be considered an ex post facto law. Those are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

The Constitution states that copyrights must be limited in length. Retroactively extending the duration of existing copyrights (as opposed to new copyrights) should be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court said in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it’s fine—wrongly, in my opinion. Correcting them would require an amendment.

> Reducing the length of existing copyright terms might be considered an ex post facto law. Those are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

No, that is definitely not an ex post facto law. That's not even close to what the ex post facto law clause covers (dealing with punishments for actions that were kosher at the time they took place).

There is an argument that shortening copyrights is prohibited by the takings clause. But I think there is a very good argument that shortening them isn't prohibited by the takings clause (for the same public-private interest balance reason that led to the first amendment arguments in Eldred v. Ashcroft and Golan v. Holder failing).

The takings clause does not apply to copyright. Copyright is not private property. Courts are not stupid.

> Reducing the length of existing copyright terms might be considered an ex post facto law.

It's arguable that "about a century" was not what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when writing "a limited time", but convincing the Supreme Court of that would be harder than an actual amendment.

But isn't the ex post facto prohibition mainly related to consequences of past actions rather than general public policy? No one is going to jail because copyright terms were reduced to 15 years from 95.

I think such a reduction would definitely be constitutional if it were phrased as "all new copyright terms will be XYZ, and existing ones will expire XYZ from the effective date of this act," but I'm not totally convinced that's necessary.

You aren't taking away anything from grants that don't exist yet, so just reduce the term for new copyrights and Steamboat Willy is your uncle.

Takes longer than changing the terms of existing grants, but so what.

I think it's more so that you're not going to convince politicians to reduce it (they have no incentive), and even if they do reduce it, there's no way to stop them from raising it again.

Unfortunately there’s no lobby paying the bills equivalent to Disney to go the other way.