Thank Mickey Mouse

Too bad they forgot that no amount of CGI can make up for a good story performed by talented actors as opposed to having to watch a bunch of walking seminal fluid depositories.

Kentucky sucks. That is all.

Sonny Bono sucks.

Weaver95: copyright law is less about protecting the rights of creators and more about protecting the profit margins for large corporations

Done in one.

As long as Disney can buy Congress critters to "protect" steamboat willy then "for a limited time" means nothing.

Weaver95: copyright law is less about protecting the rights of creators and more about protecting the profit margins for large corporations. copyright laws were never supposed to be a protection racket.

ah well. people will just pirate it all anyways.

Yep. If anything proves beyond a doubt that the rules in our society exist to protect the wealthy at the expense of the common good, it's this.

One side effect of copyright is that a copyright holder might exercise their right *not* to make it available -- for example, Disney's Song of the South. There is, of course, always piracy, but pirated versions might be of lower quality or otherwise a poor substitute for an official version.

I'm wondering if that's the case for many (or any) of the pieces referenced in the article. Is copyright law preventing the enjoyment of these works?

For instance, Rebel Without a Cause is available on Netflix, and on Amazon in both hard media, soft media, and streaming. I can also get it on iTunes. So, I can rent hard media, have my own hard media to keep, download it, or just stream it. Copyright law is not preventing me from enjoying this film.

What it is preventing is the ability of mass duplicators (who, just like copyright holders, have a profit motive) to offer a poor transfer in one of those "$2.99 DVDs" bins at the drug store, and it prevents somebody from posting it on their site for downloading or streaming while making a little money off of banner ads (again: profit motive).

Sucks to be them -- but, their ability to make a profit is not my concern.

I'm actually pretty OK with this. Many of the movies are available for

plcow: Thank Mickey Mouse

came to say this.

under $15 as are the books.

shark72: Copyright law is not preventing me from enjoying this film.

Public domain isn't just about whether you can watch the original version. It's about whether you can make derivative works as well. What if you wanted to make a stage play from the movie script? Or make your own movie version with a different setting?

Think about all of the amazing things that have been done with Shakespeare works, or Dickens, or Jane Austen (Sense and Sensibility and Seamonsters?). None of that would have been possible if those works were still under copyright protection.

I'm all for copyright protections for newer works. The authors and artists deserve to be compensated for their time and effort, but after many decades, those works become part of our culture and the copyright restrictions do more harm than good.

Krieghund: MrSid: Too bad they forgot that no amount of CGI can make up for a good story performed by talented actors as opposed to having to watch a bunch of walking seminal fluid depositories.

Oh, I don't know about that

[www.beautyden.com image 450x415]

If I wanna watch sluts being slutty I can get on teh internets where they don't pretend to be able to act.

Up to the 1830s, even corporations disbanded once they completed whatever public good they set out to accomplish. For all the good capitalism does, it has completely perverted the original intent of the founding fathers.

Anplcow: Thank Mickey Mouse

And the true irony is that many of Disney's most successful movies are based on public domain works: Cinderella, Snow White, Aladdin, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast......

What other works would be entering the public domain if we had the pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.

Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita

Darn

Dr. Rosenrosen: Anplcow: Thank Mickey Mouse

And the true irony is that many of Disney's most successful movies are based on public domain works: Cinderella, Snow White, Aladdin, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast......

Don't forget The Lion King (animal Hamlet)

Well on the bright side we'll finally legally be able to sing Happy Birthday in a public venue in 2030.

shark72: What it is preventing is the ability of mass duplicators (who, just like copyright holders, have a profit motive) to offer a poor transfer in one of those "$2.99 DVDs" bins at the drug store, and it prevents somebody from posting it on their site for downloading or streaming while making a little money off of banner ads (again: profit motive).

Sucks to be them -- but, their ability to make a profit is not my concern.

Why would that be bad? As a consumer, you'd then have the choice between a poor transfer at a low price from a public domain duplicator, or an excellent one from the movie company. Or a movie restoration institute could do a really bang up alternative transfer to the movie company and give it away, or charge a lower price. Look at some of the fan edits of the original Star Wars trilogy that are BETTER than what Lucas did.

Here's the real question: why should people who were willing to produce work under a far more limited copyright be granted a longer copyright later? The purpose of copyright is to encourage creative works. We want people to write books, songs, plays, movies. We know that Picasso was willng to produce that work under the copyright of the time, because we got the work, so how do we gain by extending it. Government granting longer copyright is like changing the terms of the deal, that we the public granted them monopoly rights (and protection) for a time, they then produced the work, but when it came time to payoff (and for us to receive the work as public domain) we didn't get it.

And yes, you can get Rebel Without a Cause, but you're supposed to be getting it for free.

Nylter: Sonny Bono sucks.

Sonny Bono is a tree hugger.....

/too soon?
//one ticket please
///window seat

Politicians are worse that farkin' whores.

Wave enough money under the nose of your average politician and the scumbag will happily screw over his own constituents for that sweet, sweet money. The worse thing about it is most politicians are already incredibly well-off but always feel entitled to more, more, MORE! After all, doing the bidding of their corporate masters is important work!

They are all nothing but a bunch of corrupt wastes of oxygen, A subclass of less than human beings. In suits and ties.

Dr. Rosenrosen: Anplcow: Thank Mickey Mouse

And the true irony is that many of Disney's most successful movies are based on public domain works: Cinderella, Snow White, Aladdin, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast......

Don't forget Peter Pan and how Disney sued a children's hospital saying the works were no longer copyright protected because the copyright on Peter Pan expired before the extension.

arasmin: Weaver95: copyright law is less about protecting the rights of creators and more about protecting the profit margins for large corporations

Done in one.

As long as Disney can buy Congress critters to "protect" steamboat willy then "for a limited time" means nothing.

No thread in the history of the Internet has ended when someone posted "Done in one."

Disney films from Public Domain works:

Snow White (1937)
Fantasia (1940)
Pinocchio (1940)
Dumbo (1941)
Bambi (1942)
Song of the South (1946)
Cinderella (1950)
Alice in Wonderland (1951)
Robin Hood (1952)
Peter Pan (1953)
Lady and the Tramp (1955)
Mulan (1998)
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
101 Dalmatians (1961)
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
The Jungle Book (1967)
Treasure Planet (2003)
Source (new window)

And don't forget all the Disneyland rides, shows, characters, merchandise, and marketing that uses these works.

Weaver95: copyright law is less about protecting the rights of creators and more about protecting the profit margins for large corporations. copyright laws were never supposed to be a protection racket.

ah well. people will just pirate it all anyways.

What really upsets me is that they don't even try to hide it. Their excuse for retroactively extending copyright makes no sense. Someone who is already dead won't be encouraged to produce more new work by the extensions unless there is necromancy involved.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they were completely honest about it and made a bill that explicitly extended copyright for a Disney properties while leaving everything else alone. But the way they are doing it a large number of non-famous no-longer profitable properties remain in copyrighted limbo. They can't be reproduced because someone still owns them, but they are not worth it to be officially reprinted either. There is a large cultural dark age starting in the first half of the 20th century.

I propose a tax on intellectual property that would force right-holders to give up unprofitable properties to the public domain but allow them to continue to profit from the ones that they still need to keep. Such a tax would only apply to work for hire or once the copyright has passed from the original holder to protect actual artists and creators. Trademarks and patents should be similarly taxed to squash down on squatters.

Doctor Jan Itor: Disney films from Public Domain works:

Snow White (1937)
Fantasia (1940)
Pinocchio (1940)
Dumbo (1941)
Bambi (1942)
Song of the South (1946)
Cinderella (1950)
Alice in Wonderland (1951)
Robin Hood (1952)
Peter Pan (1953)
Lady and the Tramp (1955)
Mulan (1998)
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
101 Dalmatians (1961)
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
The Jungle Book (1967)
Treasure Planet (2003)
Source (new window)

And don't forget all the Disneyland rides, shows, characters, merchandise, and marketing that uses these works.

You are perfectly welcome to create original work based on the same source material.

shark72: One side effect of copyright is that a copyright holder might exercise their right *not* to make it available -- for example, Disney's Song of the South. There is, of course, always piracy, but pirated versions might be of lower quality or otherwise a poor substitute for an official version.

Ah, the old "but monopolies ensure that you get high quality goods" argument! It doesn't hold, free markets have consistently won out over government granted monopolies.

In the case of movies and such, usually the "pirated" versions are actually better than the originals. They don't have DRM to interfere with your choice of player, they don't have forced previews of stuff I don't care about, they often have other stuff, sometimes completely unrelated films/cartoons/TV shows to fill up the rest of the DVD, etc.

In many cases the threat of piracy is all that forces copyright holders to release their works at reasonable prices, or release them at all. If these copyrights didn't last forever minus a day, the copyright holders would work very hard to flood the market before their copyright runs out, and that means delivering the best possible product at the lowest possible price.

In the case of software, copyrights actively discourage competition. The choices consumers make isn't between Product A from one company and a similar Product B from another, but paying full price for a product from Company A an pirating the same software. The piracy option forces Company B out of the market, letting Company A charge high prices and a constant threat of lawsuits against anyone who pirates too much. If copyrights weren't so long, Company A would have to compete with Company A's product from several years back. That would force them to constantly improve their product.

I have no problems with copyrights and patents as long as the government granted monopolies are long enough to encourage invention/publication, but short enough that We, The People, benefit more from our government granting these monopolies than the copyright/patent holders get.

I'm currently raising the funds to be cryogenically frozen until the goddamn Far Side can be viewed online.


/had to add cryogenically to Firefox's spell check
//keep me frozen until browsers stop sucking
/// Chrome is horrible, don't even go there.

wrs1864: I have no problems with copyrights and patents as long as the government granted monopolies are long enough to encourage invention/publication, but short enough that We, The People, benefit more from our government granting these monopolies than the copyright/patent holders get.

Look, if you were a pop star would you become an accountant because you only got 25 years of protection rather than 75? No, you'd be out there making records, selling gigs and banging chicks. The vast majority of movie income is in the first 2 years.

Dear Jerk: Up to the 1830s, even corporations disbanded once they completed whatever public good they set out to accomplish. For all the good capitalism does, it has completely perverted the original intent of the founding fathers.

Aw, I'm saw-wee you can't have other peoples' intellectual property for fwee!

Fark off!

Love,

Stockholder of American corporations.

farkeruk: The vast majority of movie income is in the first 2 years.

What about sequels like Harry Potter?

Weaver95: copyright law is less about protecting the rights of creators and more about protecting the profit margins for large corporations. copyright laws were never supposed to be a protection racket.

ah well. people will just pirate it all anyways.

Meh. Times change.

wrs1864: I have no problems with copyrights and patents as long as the government granted monopolies are long enough to encourage invention/publication, but short enough that We, The People, benefit more from ...

Fun fact: the original Copyright Act of 1790 specified a term of 14 years, renewable once for 14 more.

Oddly enough, research has indicated that the founding fathers got this one dead right.

Ghastly: As a person who enjoys cashing my royalty cheques just as much as the next guy let me just go on record as saying I believe that copyright law has to be one of the most abused forms of legislation perverted grossly from its original intent. Between unlimited extensions and the continual eroding of fair use it will not be long before it will simply be impossible for anyone to create anything without someone claiming they already own the copyright to it. 25 years. Period. That should be the entirety of copyright protection. It is supposed to be a LIMITED monopoly granted to encourage NEW works. You want to make more money? Great! Create more works. Don't keep milking your current repertoire for all eternity.

People have a right to protect their work and assure it will continue to provide enrichment to their descendants.

My children deserve to continue to receive payment for my work long after I am gone.

T.M.S.: You are perfectly welcome to create original work based on the same source material.

Way to completely miss that point.

Because it needs spelling out: Disney exploited public domain to in order to create derivative works of art without compensating the original authors. This is something that they have done in the past and continue to do to this day. But they have also perverted the copyright system in order to prevent others from doing the exact same practice that is fundamental to their own business model.

In short, they're a perfect example of how industry and government conspire against everyone else: they've perverted the law to allow themselves to have their cake and eat it too.

T.M.S.: People have a right to protect their work and assure it will continue to provide enrichment to their descendants.

Out of curiosity, when do you think this should end?

I mean, do you think we ought to be tracking down the descendants of Homer and still giving them royalties for the Iliad and the Odyssey?

citation needed, was under the assumption that the Peter Pan book copyright was still going strong since it was based on a special circumstance.

http://www.gosh.org/gen/peterpan/copyright/publishing/

(was correct and not a wikipeida citation)

Corydon: T.M.S.: People have a right to protect their work and assure it will continue to provide enrichment to their descendants.

Out of curiosity, when do you think this should end?

I mean, do you think we ought to be tracking down the descendants of Homer and still giving them royalties for the Iliad and the Odyssey?

Honestly I have no idea.

But certainly for much longer than 25 years.

If people don't want to pay they are welcome to not consume the product.

And as to the earlier point. I did not miss it. I was simply responding to the "Mickey Mouse should be Public Domain" argument.

Doctor Jan Itor, Disney's "101 Dalmatians" comes up at a mid-50s literary work that Disney licensed the right to...I'm sure Walt's people "drove a hard bargain," but I guess that means it wasn't really from a P.D. source:

Link (new window)

/Thanks for the list nonetheless; "Fantasia" was all technically PD music, though the whole story of Stravinsky and "The Rite of Spring" and U.S./Russia's recognition of each other's copyrights at the time is an interesting tale.

Weaver95: copyright law is less about protecting the rights of creators and more about protecting the profit margins for large corporations.

what is wrong with that?

if you create a movie, why does the public think that they have a right to it for free in 28 years or 128 years? It ain't yours, stop with the mooching and pathetic entitlement attitude already.

PsiChick: Dr. Rosenrosen: shark72: Copyright law is not preventing me from enjoying this film.

Public domain isn't just about whether you can watch the original version. It's about whether you can make derivative works as well. What if you wanted to make a stage play from the movie script? Or make your own movie version with a different setting?

Think about all of the amazing things that have been done with Shakespeare works, or Dickens, or Jane Austen (Sense and Sensibility and Seamonsters?). None of that would have been possible if those works were still under copyright protection.

I'm all for copyright protections for newer works. The authors and artists deserve to be compensated for their time and effort, but after many decades, those works become part of our culture and the copyright restrictions do more harm than good.

Pretty much this. My creation of a fanvid or fanfic isn't losing anyone money, and shouldn't be prosecuted as if it is--and if, after the author is dead, someone wants to make a parody, I see no problem with that.

/Even paying royalties to families is iffy for me--they did not make the work.

Henry Fords descendants don't make cars but they sure do profit from them.

A family business is a family business. Regardless of what they sell.