3 ms·

I don't see Disney really making a huge amount off Mickey Mouse. Mickey is mostly just the corporate mascot. I have no problem, though, with makers of cartoon

I don't see Disney really making a huge amount off Mickey Mouse. Mickey is mostly just the corporate mascot. I have no problem, though, with makers of cartoon animals making bunches of money. They provide happiness. I'm glad I live in a day and age where it isn't just the people who can make the best weapons that do well for themselves. I'm sure there are more "noble" pursuits, but....how many people actually participate in them? Most people seem to just move money from one place to another, while grabbing a bit for themselves in the process. For what it is worth, though, the cartoon animals that bring the most joy into my family are those on the cartoon Peppa Pig (I have a two year old daughter, but I find that I enjoy it myself, albeit on a somewhat different level). I hear the people who make it are making a killing, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

cookiecaper 11y ago
So let me clarify a little bit. I'm not opposed to intellectual property per se and I'm not opposed to people making money off of their creations. It's not really about creators receiving an immediate fortune or anything like that. I kept bringing up cartoon animals as a form of rhetorical trivialization, but it's actually larger than any specific instance. The issue is the obscenely disproportionate value we've artificially assigned these supposedly-time-limited monopolies, which, in practice, never actually expire, and the consequences that flow out from that, like massive political and social influence. Media companies are among the world's largest companies not because of an organic or inherent value in the product they sell, but because we've decided to structure IP laws such that a nearly-infinitely renewable resource, a resource whose upkeep and maintenance costs are as close to zero as you'll ever get, is allowed to be guarded with hyper-protective legal sanctuaries that make it criminal not only to compete directly, but practically to test, study, or develop the subject. The issue is not that someone is making money off of things that are trivial. The issue is that we've made it way too easy for them to become a dominant force upon completely baseless pretenses. Law regarding physical property mimics and formalizes the natural consequences that you would expect in the real world -- it formalizes conventional human behavior and expectations, which is why it works as part of the framework that allow us to live in a cohesive nation instead of insulated tribes. It makes sense how laws regarding physical property came into existence and how they relate to basic human impulses. Most people obey the law regarding physical property. IP law, on the other hand, has no fixed corollary or reference point (since, as above, intellectual resources are naturally un-ownable) and is non-intuitive. IP law is widely and flagrantly disregarded by most people, many of whom don't even understand they're doing something illegal every time they right-click and save-as a picture of Mickey Mouse, listen to an album on YouTube, or use commercial music in the background at an important event; our IP laws do not comport with a basic sense of fairness. This is manifest when someone says "Why do we care so much what [$FILM_AND/OR_MUSIC_SENSATION] thinks about [$IMPORTANT_SUBJECT_X]?" or any of the many variations of that which people say. The public understands intuitively that the IP cartels are not deserving of their social position, but they don't make the connection that their position is secured not by any goods that are intrinsically valuable, but solely by the artificial value that we've assigned to them via the fabrication of IP law. Let me reiterate that I'm not opposed to copyright as such. I am opposed to the grossly disproportionate influence we allow media entities and rightsholders to wield over our politics and our culture, courtesy of excessively one-sided copyright and intellectual property laws. We need to fix it. For starters, we should knock the copyright term down to 10-15 years. My kids also love Peppa Pig and I'm also glad that their creators are making money.

cookiecaper 11y ago

So let me clarify a little bit. I'm not opposed to intellectual property per se and I'm not opposed to people making money off of their creations. It's not really about creators receiving an immediate fortune or anything like that. I kept bringing up cartoon animals as a form of rhetorical trivialization, but it's actually larger than any specific instance. The issue is the obscenely disproportionate value we've artificially assigned these supposedly-time-limited monopolies, which, in practice, never actually expire, and the consequences that flow out from that, like massive political and social influence. Media companies are among the world's largest companies not because of an organic or inherent value in the product they sell, but because we've decided to structure IP laws such that a nearly-infinitely renewable resource, a resource whose upkeep and maintenance costs are as close to zero as you'll ever get, is allowed to be guarded with hyper-protective legal sanctuaries that make it criminal not only to compete directly, but practically to test, study, or develop the subject. The issue is not that someone is making money off of things that are trivial. The issue is that we've made it way too easy for them to become a dominant force upon completely baseless pretenses. Law regarding physical property mimics and formalizes the natural consequences that you would expect in the real world -- it formalizes conventional human behavior and expectations, which is why it works as part of the framework that allow us to live in a cohesive nation instead of insulated tribes. It makes sense how laws regarding physical property came into existence and how they relate to basic human impulses. Most people obey the law regarding physical property. IP law, on the other hand, has no fixed corollary or reference point (since, as above, intellectual resources are naturally un-ownable) and is non-intuitive. IP law is widely and flagrantly disregarded by most people, many of whom don't even understand they're doing something illegal every time they right-click and save-as a picture of Mickey Mouse, listen to an album on YouTube, or use commercial music in the background at an important event; our IP laws do not comport with a basic sense of fairness. This is manifest when someone says "Why do we care so much what [$FILM_AND/OR_MUSIC_SENSATION] thinks about [$IMPORTANT_SUBJECT_X]?" or any of the many variations of that which people say. The public understands intuitively that the IP cartels are not deserving of their social position, but they don't make the connection that their position is secured not by any goods that are intrinsically valuable, but solely by the artificial value that we've assigned to them via the fabrication of IP law. Let me reiterate that I'm not opposed to copyright as such. I am opposed to the grossly disproportionate influence we allow media entities and rightsholders to wield over our politics and our culture, courtesy of excessively one-sided copyright and intellectual property laws. We need to fix it. For starters, we should knock the copyright term down to 10-15 years. My kids also love Peppa Pig and I'm also glad that their creators are making money.