|
Grex > Music3 > #188: The Twentieth "Napsterization" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 80 responses total. |
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
|
gull
|
|
response 69 of 80:
|
May 19 18:39 UTC 2005 |
That doesn't mean it's legal.
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 80:
|
May 19 18:50 UTC 2005 |
re #69
If legality of a xerox copy of a worn out library of congress out of print
book really is a huge concern then you can always approach the copyright owner
and ask permission for a personal pdf or xerox of it(and probably at a fee
but still...it'd be legal then.)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 80:
|
May 19 19:27 UTC 2005 |
You can ask, but they can either quote you an outrageous charge or (more
likely) just ignore your request. And that's assuming you're able to
even figure out who to ask.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 80:
|
May 19 19:30 UTC 2005 |
If you are using the copy for academic purposes then its legal to copy the
entire out of print text.
|
drew
|
|
response 73 of 80:
|
May 19 20:05 UTC 2005 |
I oppose the entire concept of "intellectual property", for reasons similar
to those expressed by janc in response 156 to item 93 for opposing bans on
abortion.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 74 of 80:
|
May 19 21:33 UTC 2005 |
If you wanna make a mouse story, invent your own damn mouse. WB created
Speedy Gonzalez, "whoever" created Stuart Little.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 75 of 80:
|
May 19 23:27 UTC 2005 |
And if you ever want to see "Song of the South" again, well, tough,
'cause Disney owns the rights and intends to never release it again.
Of course it's not like they invented the stories depicted in the
movie -- they used Joel Chandler Harris' popular retellings of
African-American folk tales..
And "Stuart Little" was created by E.B. White. It's not his best
work (I like "The Trumpet of the Swan", but "Charlotte's Web" has
its following as well..) but you'd think people would remember the
guy who wrote several of the most enduringly popular children's books.
|
tod
|
|
response 76 of 80:
|
May 19 23:51 UTC 2005 |
I like how they skewed Pocahantas.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 77 of 80:
|
May 20 00:56 UTC 2005 |
It is "Poke-her-in-da-hontas"...
I think movies just like to ruin classic good books.
|
drew
|
|
response 78 of 80:
|
May 20 06:56 UTC 2005 |
Re #75:
That's enough to make me rethink my position on copyrights... :S
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 80:
|
May 20 13:27 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:75: Disney is just lucky no one thought to pass that copyright
extension law back then, or they wouldn't have any legal source material
to base their movies on. ;)
|
tod
|
|
response 80 of 80:
|
May 20 14:57 UTC 2005 |
They owe Annette and Cubby BIG TIME.
|