Sort of an aside, but I love how the headline of this article: "Hollywood Says It's Not Planning Another Copyright Extension Push" implies that Congress is basically powerless against Hollywood's whims (or money).
In the past they were. Congress loves celebrities as much as anyone. Play a doctors on TV and congress will ask you medical questions, and pass laws based on your "medical expertise". As a result when Hollywood asks congress listens more than they should.
However there is something far more important to Congress than celebrities or money: votes. Hollywood and congress knows that there are a significant number of voters who are not happy about copyright extensions and are watching. They know very well that if a copyright extension passes some of them will lose their job, and that is not something few are willing to risk.
I think that's a lot of tech bubble thinking. The majority of people vote along party lines. Even those who don't won't have "this person voted for copyright extension" on the top of their list of concerns.
Then when you back out to the primaries, how many primaries are going to be won because the incumbent voted for copyright extensions?
This is like the tech hysteria against Facebook, I'm not saying it wasn't warranted, but most people who do know the details just shrugged and kept posting cat videos....
The majority of people don't vote in primaries, they consider themselves independent.
I don't know if they vote alone party lines, but the fact that we have switched between democrat and republican presidents regularly is proof that enough people change their vote.
Even ignoring that, those who do vote parties lines and vote in primaries are also likely to be the ones doing volunteer work to get their guy elected. Make them mad and they will vote the party, but they won't do as much work and that can swing an election.
> The majority of people don't vote in primaries, they consider themselves independent.
“independent” voters show the same degree of partisan consistency as those identifying with a party.
> I don't know if they vote alone party lines, but the fact that we have switched between democrat and republican presidents regularly is proof that enough people change their vote.
It's more proof of the fact that the composition of the eligible electorate and which of them actually turn out to vote changes; the assumption that the same people are voting in every election so changed party outcomes are driven by voters flipping from one party to another is inaccurate.
The people who vote in the primaries are the "true believers". It doesn't matter how many vote in the primaries. When you win the primary depending you are narrowing your choices down to two people who realistically have a chance for winning.
The presidential election is skewed by the electoral college, congressional voting isn't.
> the fact that we have switched between democrat and republican presidents regularly is proof that enough people change their vote
Not really. Only half the eligible voters actually vote in presidential elections. Different voters come out to vote at different times in different states for different reasons, and some of those may switch their vote, but the majority vote along party lines as noted in the above articles.
The presidential elections are swung by having more ideologically extreme past presidents. Two terms of Clinton led to two terms of Bush led to two terms of Obama leads into two terms of Trump, and then we'll have two terms of Bernie or something equally extreme, like a transgender asexual black mexican jew. (And I just looked it up - there is a transgender queer black mexican rabbi in Chicago, but unfortunately you can't get elected in this country without being a proud Christian)
That's not why they're not fighting it. They're not fighting it because it takes millions of dollars to lobby and they aren't going to make millions of dollars back from films from the 1950s. Nobody will vote an incumbent congressman out of office for extending copyright.
