|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 80 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 80:
| 
May 14 02:58 UTC 2005 |
(The extended copyright/patent terms are also intended to benefit heirs and
assigns: Kids want what their forebears created.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 80:
|
May 14 05:29 UTC 2005 |
They're excused as being intended to benefit heirs of the creators but
I highly doubt that that was more than a convenient rationale for the
people who fight for copyright extensions every time the clock starts
ticking down and it looks like some will be allowed to expire.
|
remmers
|
|
response 46 of 80:
|
May 14 15:14 UTC 2005 |
Indeed; corporations like Disney have more political clout than "heirs".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 47 of 80:
|
May 15 03:41 UTC 2005 |
Disney *is* an heir, but point taken.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 48 of 80:
|
May 15 06:36 UTC 2005 |
The Disney corporation is not an heir of Walt Disney, the original
creator of Mickey Mouse and several other of the classic Disney
characters. In fact, in a number of instances in recent years the
Disney family (Roy Disney in particular) has been publicly at odds
with the Disney corporation.
Also, virtually every major work created for (and owned by) the Disney
corporation in the last fifty years has been work for hire. No heirs
of the creative talents continue to benefit from the copyrights on
works their parents created unless those creators took their compensation
in the form of Disney stock.
This fight really isn't about looking out for the orphan children of
the tortured artist, though Disney's lawyers might like you to think
that some such sympathetic figures are involved..
|
jep
|
|
response 49 of 80:
|
May 16 21:50 UTC 2005 |
re resp:40: I have never seen any opposition to that viewpoint on Grex,
and so I am going to run my ideas up the flag pole and see what happens
to them when people try to shoot them down.
Up until this century, all works of art were created by individuals or
in rare cases, very small teams such as husbands and wives, or pairs of
brothers. As far as I know, no corporation had ever created a work of
art before this century.
Patent law also had to go through the transformation from individual
creation of inventions (Edison, Whitney, Tesla, etc.) to corporate
creation (Bayer Corp, IBM, GE). No one person ever owned, or should
have owned, the patent on the transistor, or Viagra. Those couldn't be
created by an individual. The resources of a corporation were required
or they never could have happened.
The Disney Corporation has been a leader in expanding copyright law to
cover materials created by a corporation, but they were also among the
leaders in creating works of art in this manner.
Copyright law was written to cover the period of time when the creation
was of economic benefit to it's creator. For an individual, that is
his lifetime. After he's dead, he's not much interested in protecting
his copyright. But Disney does get a lot of continuing benefit from
Walt Disney's signature creation, Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney built his
corporation up from that image to it's current status as a multi-
billion dollar empire.
The Disney versions of "Cinderella", "Pocahantos" and "Toy Story"
couldn't be done by a single individual. Too much manpower, and too
many resources, are needed. "Toy Story" couldn't even be done by a
single corporation. Disney and Pixar cooperated on it.
So for these corporate creations, which had no existence preceding the
initiative of their corporate originators, why shouldn't their
corporations continue to have perpetual ownership? I don't think it
has anything to do with sympathetic figures. I think it has to do with
what's right. No one else is hurt by Disney continuing to own Mickey
Mouse.
|
scott
|
|
response 50 of 80:
|
May 16 23:10 UTC 2005 |
To nitpick, don't you mean "the previous century"? ;)
I guess that I'd say that perpetual copyrights do have a negative influence
on art, though - eventually we'll end up with all the ideas used, and big
corporations (with vast armies of lawyers) ready to pounce on any possible
infringement.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 51 of 80:
|
May 16 23:22 UTC 2005 |
re #49: If Disney-style copyrights had been in place forever we wouldn't
even *have* Disney versions of: Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the
Beast, and many others.. The problem I have with Disney's position is that
as far as I can tell they're only interested in what's good for Disney.
Perhaps that's the duty they owe their shareholders but as my interests are
not the same as theirs, I naturally find my position differing from theirs.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 80:
|
May 17 13:58 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:50: It seems to be widely accepted as a truism now, in computer
science, that it's probably impossible to write a program of any
significant size without infringing at least one patent.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 53 of 80:
|
May 17 16:45 UTC 2005 |
And don't forget [Registered] Trademarks...
|
gull
|
|
response 54 of 80:
|
May 17 19:06 UTC 2005 |
Right. Or you're fired*!
* "You're fired" is a registered trademark of Trump, Inc.
|
jep
|
|
response 55 of 80:
|
May 17 20:37 UTC 2005 |
re resp:54: That's nuts, but I remember when IBM used to sue small
computer companies who used the word "blue" in the names of any of
their products.
re resp:51: Copyrights are supposed to be used to protect specific
stories, not plots. There aren't any new plots or unique ideas for
stories, and haven't been for millenia.
I'd agree with Disney being able to protect Mickey Mouse and the way
they drew the ants in "A Bug's Life" and other such
creations. "Aladdin" isn't a Disney creatio, but their movie version
is.
|
gull
|
|
response 56 of 80:
|
May 18 14:02 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:55: I also remember IBM successfully defending a trademark on
"/2". (Remember the PS/2? They sued a company who came out with a
product called the "Mouse/2".)
|
keesan
|
|
response 57 of 80:
|
May 18 15:23 UTC 2005 |
As in Epson's ESCP/2 printer? Modelled on the ESCP.
|
jor
|
|
response 58 of 80:
|
May 18 16:00 UTC 2005 |
Know why they called it "Pentium"?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 59 of 80:
|
May 18 16:17 UTC 2005 |
Because you can't trademark "586."
|
remmers
|
|
response 60 of 80:
|
May 18 19:23 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:55 - The thing is that "Snow White", "Hunchback of Notre Dame",
and "Sleeping Beauty" *are* "specific stories". The Disney corporation
has drawn deeply from the public domain well but doesn't seem to want to
give anything back, ever. I doubt that's what the framers of the
Constitution had in mind when they specified that copyrights should be
for a "limited time".
I can paint the same landscapes that Van Gogh painted, in exactly the
way he did them (to the extent that my ability allows), and sell them,
as long as I don't try to pass them off as genuine Van Goghs. Why
shouldn't I be allowed to do that with Mickey Mouse, eventually?
As McNally pointed out earlier, the Disney Corporation that has a lock
on Mickey Mouse bears little correspondence to the geniuses that created
the Mickey Mouse character: Walt Disney, Ub Iwerks, Floyd Gottfredson,
and a handful of others. (Most folks have heard of Walt Disney, but the
other two are not as well known...)
|
jep
|
|
response 61 of 80:
|
May 18 19:50 UTC 2005 |
re resp:60: Copyright law never did mandate that anyone give up a
financial interest in something he had created. It provided for
copyright ownership to end at a reasonable period after the creator had
died. The Disney Corporation, which collaborates the efforts of
hundreds or thousands of artists to produce movies, has not "died".
You can't "rewrite" Stephen King novels as accurately as possible and
sell the result as original. Stephen King is still alive and owns his
copyrights.
There are movies out there with the same titles as Disney movies,
obviously marketed in hopes of fooling people into buying them,
thinking they're the Disney movie. I believe I've seen Pocahantos,
Sleeping Beauty, The Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and doubtless
others. Go to Toys R Us and you'll see them. I bet Toys R Us wouldn't
carry them if it weren't legal to sell them. No one is preventing
anyone from retelling fairy tales or making movies from them.
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 80:
|
May 18 20:08 UTC 2005 |
Are you talking about patents? We're discussing copyright.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 63 of 80:
|
May 18 21:25 UTC 2005 |
I would like to think that, if five hundred years from now an artist
wanted to make a holo-movie based on a Stephen King novel, he could do
so without having to negotiate with Amagmated Old Books Inc.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 64 of 80:
|
May 18 21:50 UTC 2005 |
I firmly believe he'll have to negotiate the rights with Stephen King's
head-in-a-jar, ala Futurama.
|
gull
|
|
response 65 of 80:
|
May 19 02:20 UTC 2005 |
One of my quarrels with copyright law is when a company "hoards"
intellectual property by keeping the rights to a work, but refusing to
publish it. A fair number of books, movies, and songs are "out of
print" and not legally available in any form. It's hard to see how
anyone benefits from that situation. At least if copyrights
eventually expire, those works will eventually fall into the public
domain and become available again.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 80:
|
May 19 05:08 UTC 2005 |
You don't know anybody near the Lib of COngress that can run xeroxes for you?
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 80:
|
May 19 18:36 UTC 2005 |
Xeroxing an entire copyrighted work wouldn't be legal, though it's
commonly done with out of print stuff.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 80:
|
May 19 18:37 UTC 2005 |
re #67
"commonly done with out of print stuff"
Exactly
|