|Scrimmjob - 2015-12-06 |
Sounds like if the TPP goes through this shit's going to get even worse.
One negetive side effect is that counties with looser public domain laws will change their's to vibe with ours.
|BiggerJ - 2015-12-06 |
The sad thing is that if Steamboat Willie ever falls into the public domain, people will remix it into horrible atrocities the likes of which the darknet has never seen out of sheer spite - into exactly the sort of things Disney is trying to prevent by maintaining absolute control over its creations.
|SolRo - 2015-12-06 |
Corporations went to congress and said "We need to make more money at the expense of the public good"
congress immediately got on their knees and sucked that dick, hard.
One of the congressmen was a literal fat cat in a top hat and monocle, and he was wearing a shirt that said "CONGRESS." Next to him was a frowning eagle labeled "FREEDOM" and a dead walrus labeled "THE GOLD STANDARD."
when was the last time American politics -didn't- look like a poorly made cartoon?
Oh, damn. Touche'.
|Caminante Nocturno - 2015-12-07 |
How many of these assholes do you people need in your lives?
|ashtar. - 2015-12-07 |
This is deeply pedantic and annoying, while providing little substantial information.
|RabbitMountain - 2015-12-07 |
The extension in IP duration can be a good thing.
The reason is simple. A lot of works now are created by large groups Instead of individuals. Movies, video games and drugs can cost billions to create, which requiring large groups to fund. The increased duration in IP reduces the risk of a long term loss. Thus large scale works become more attractive.
Question would you invest in trails for an anti cancer drug with slim success if you only got 6 year of profit if it where successful? Would you do it if it where thirty?
It's simple math really. Money will be invested where it gets the most profit vs least risk. More profit = more future investment
Addendum. Yes I would like to see infinite terms on IP. As manufacturing costs drop to near ##CONTENT## we need to run the economy on something else like the sale of ideas. A good example is zero cost software. Instead of selling software the companies just sell your details.
Which has jack-all-shit to do with the reason the law was extended; an anthro mouse created by one douchebag.
But allowing IP's to expire would ensure that those ideas stay new. Infinite IP just means you can have one successful idea, then do jack shit for the next eternity as your grandkids continue to collect royalties because of something you did 80 years ago.
Oh, and in answer to your question: believe it or not, a lot of people want to cure cancer regardless of the potential profit involved, because that would result in, um, no more cancer. A lot of people like the idea of there being no more cancer.
(And if all you care about is profit then you're not trying to cure cancer anyway, since cancer drugs make more money than a cure ever would.)
THe problem is this: corporations aren't people, but they have the same rights as them. If corporations were people they would be obscenely powerful sociopaths.
Corporations have many, not all, of the rights of natural persons because corporations are groups of people acting together. Imagine what "freedom of the press" would look like if it only applied to individuals not corporations. Imagine if governments could require corporations to make statements only in favour of government policy, or only donate to the ruling party.
In fact you don't have to imagine: Putin has gone after individual rights by attacking their corporate manifestations first -- alternate media outlets, NGOs, and so on.
But no, go ahead BiggerJ, bury yourself in thoughtless smarm with no thought at all of why the legal system might have a precedent like that.
|chumbucket - 2015-12-07 |
Oh bummer! Now we all have to be creative! Waaahhh!
Yeah, I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Do we want a million bootleg Mickey shirts in every gas station or something?
though it is caused by Disney, it doesn't just effect Disney IP.
and as the video you just fuckin watch mentioned, even Disney massively reuses earlier works and characters.
Yeah what they did is hypocritical, but it's not like you can't go and make your own Cinderella, Aladdin or Little Mermaid musical if you want to, you just can't use the IP like the songs and likenesses and such. Big fucking deal.
Also I really don't like this guy, but his topics are sometimes interesting so 3 out of 5. Adam ruins Adam Ruins Everything.
The Disney original characters are the problem. And the knock on effect of Disney fucking up patent law for its own gain.
Yeah I'm not saying it's right, but since it doesn't have effect on parody, a show like South Park can go ahead and use Mickey's likeness and name and turn him into a gun toting cussin' mouse if they want to. It just means that I couldn't go and make my own series of cartoons starring Donald Duck. I'd just have to make a different duck that talks. Toy Story and Small Soldiers came out around the same time, and both are about talking toys, and University of Oregon uses Donald Duck as their mascot, just with a different name (although there's been some back and forth controversy with that). Disney's had some interesting original characters for sure, but I've never felt all like "oh man I wish I could see what Wes Anderson could do with these.."
Thing is, it shouldn't be your decision (or disneys) about what is done with a character past a certain point. Should an interesting character have shorter copyright periods or something? Should a boring character get perpetual protection?
If someone wants to do some dystopian gorefest staring a mentally unstable goofy and his wastelands companion pluto, it should be ok by now.
Yeah, it's interesting. There were many comic book characters that weren't property of one of the big publishers that came out in the 20s and 30s, so if I found one of those in my grandpa's house, thought it looked cool, traced it, made a brand new story out of it and it made a fortune, I'd feel weird knowing that I didn't owe a dime to the creator's family were they to step forward on it.
I'm sure you can sleep soundly at night knowing that his great grandchildren probably never even met him or know much about him.
Certainly they'd love the free money, but they had absolutely no involvement in its creation.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|