8 ms·

There definitely is a problem with how long copyright lasts, and Disney is directly responsible for strongly lobbying to make it last longer.

wolfgke 8y ago
> Disney is directly responsible for strongly lobbying to make it last longer. And the hacker scene is directly respondible for not developing darknet software with which one can circumvent these copyright restrictions.
- vetinari 8y ago
  Just like with DRM, technology is not a solution to a social problem. Having a darknet software that circumvents copyright restrictions won't prevent a squad of guys with guns appearing at your doorstep and taking you to a place, where you will spend several years. To prevent that, you need another solution and the answer is not technology or software.
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Having a darknet software that circumvents copyright restrictions won't prevent a squad of guys with guns appearing at your doorstep and taking you to a place That is why I wrote "darknet software". If the software cannot ensure anonymity, you get this kind of problem. > To prevent that, you need another solution and the answer is not technology or software. Sure, but until a solution appears, better create technology and software that makes civil disobedience easy.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      In case of movies/tv shows/music/etc, which you do not need to live, much better solution is to ignore the existence of the movies/tv shows/music/etc produced by companies that abuse whatever you believe. That will get you much further (see? the market is not interested at all, why do they need that law?), than making them a victim and giving them a reason to push for much more draconian laws.
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        > In case of movies/tv shows/music/etc, which you do not need to live, much better solution is to ignore the existence of the movies/tv shows/music/etc produced by companies that abuse whatever you believe. I already do, so to me this is nothing even worth talking about. :-) The problem rather lies, for example, in the "cultural" references that people use all the time. > than making them a victim and giving them a reason to push for much more draconian laws. I tell you: You can do what you want - they will make you a victim in any case. In this sense I do not just ignore their movies etc., but also ignore their rights to have a right to censor (copyright), too. I am against violence, so I am against copyright, too.
- phaus 8y ago
  So this group of people is morally obligated to risk prosecution and civil lawsuits to help strangers break laws just because we don't agree with them?
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    "There is no justice in following unjust laws." Aaron Swartz (1986-2013)
    - aje403 8y ago
      You're very entitled. Go do it yourself or stop crying about what other people should do
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        > Go do it yourself Who says that I do not work on such things already? (just perhaps in a somehwat different way than you might spontanously have in the back of your mind).
        aje403 8y ago
        I have nothing on my mind in particular, I just like to call out lazy entitled people who think that others should do things they want for them, be it on the internet or in person
    - phaus 8y ago
      Exactly how much justice was there in Aaron's not having followed the unjust laws? He was a kind, brilliant person, barely out of childhood, and his life has come to an end. I admire what he did and I find the way he was treated criminal and deplorable. However, Its difficult to blame developers for not wanting to go to prison and/or be harassed to death.
- macintux 8y ago
  How in the world does media theft help alleviate the concern that Disney owns our culture? Breaking DRM won’t help Warner Brothers create a Mickey Mouse (or any other) universe to compete.
rdlecler1 8y ago
Counter argument: Would a movie like Star Wars lose it’s cultural value if anyone could make a star wars movie — creating so many rip-offs that the soul of the original was lost? I think Disney has been a good custodian of the franchise and might not have invested so much into it if they didn’t have that exclusivity.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  I don’t think so. Someone would make a better one and the original would eventually fade into obscurity (cf. the original fairytales that were made into Disney movies)
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    Who is going to make a better one if no studio can accumulate enough capital to make large big-budget bets? Last I checked, very few small budget studios can make big blockbuster movies. The reason Disney can is because they have accumulated capital with their IP and are backed by investors who recognize the value of that IP.
    - oblio 8y ago
      So you're saying that in a free market no one could get the capital without the IP? I'm sorry, but I feel that's ridiculous. They could still have access to popular actors, directors, screenwriters. Franchises aren't everything. Otherwise the highest grossing movies wouldn't be Avatar and Titanic :)
      - qbrass 8y ago
        Fox didn't gamble $250 million on Avatar or $200 million on Titanic without something else paying the bills.
- jerf 8y ago
  Personally, I'd be happy with a regime where copyright lasts, say, 20 years, but trademarks last as long as you are actively using them and defending them. This would mean that "Star Wars" would fall out of copyright, and anyone could sell Star Wars DVD/Blurays at whatever cost they like, could use the material in various creative ways at will, but nobody could actually make "Star Wars 24: The Cheap Sucking Cash Grab That's Totally The Next Star Wars, So Fork It Over Moviegoing Slobs". You'd have to call it something else that makes it very clear that it's not actually "Star Wars". What Disney wants is to grab everything it can. Not that surprising. What it needs is to be able to protect its reputation and for its name brand to mean something. That does not require multi-century copyright terms... it requires trademarks. Making me less happy, I'd be comfortable with a regime where copyrights expire after 10/20 years or something, but companies can indefinitely renew them on an exponentially-growing basis every decade or something, making companies have to decide whether they are actively using a property or whether it's more economical to just let it go. The major problem with the copyright term being so long isn't that it covers Steamboat Willie... the major problem is that it covers everything. An absurd amount of culture is not just tied up in copyrights, but copyrights that literally nobody knows where they reside, because who wants to track the rights to some kids book from 80 years ago carefully or something?

wolfgke 8y ago

> Disney is directly responsible for strongly lobbying to make it last longer. And the hacker scene is directly respondible for not developing darknet software with which one can circumvent these copyright restrictions.

vetinari 8y ago
Just like with DRM, technology is not a solution to a social problem. Having a darknet software that circumvents copyright restrictions won't prevent a squad of guys with guns appearing at your doorstep and taking you to a place, where you will spend several years. To prevent that, you need another solution and the answer is not technology or software.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Having a darknet software that circumvents copyright restrictions won't prevent a squad of guys with guns appearing at your doorstep and taking you to a place That is why I wrote "darknet software". If the software cannot ensure anonymity, you get this kind of problem. > To prevent that, you need another solution and the answer is not technology or software. Sure, but until a solution appears, better create technology and software that makes civil disobedience easy.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    In case of movies/tv shows/music/etc, which you do not need to live, much better solution is to ignore the existence of the movies/tv shows/music/etc produced by companies that abuse whatever you believe. That will get you much further (see? the market is not interested at all, why do they need that law?), than making them a victim and giving them a reason to push for much more draconian laws.
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > In case of movies/tv shows/music/etc, which you do not need to live, much better solution is to ignore the existence of the movies/tv shows/music/etc produced by companies that abuse whatever you believe. I already do, so to me this is nothing even worth talking about. :-) The problem rather lies, for example, in the "cultural" references that people use all the time. > than making them a victim and giving them a reason to push for much more draconian laws. I tell you: You can do what you want - they will make you a victim in any case. In this sense I do not just ignore their movies etc., but also ignore their rights to have a right to censor (copyright), too. I am against violence, so I am against copyright, too.
phaus 8y ago
So this group of people is morally obligated to risk prosecution and civil lawsuits to help strangers break laws just because we don't agree with them?
- wolfgke 8y ago
  "There is no justice in following unjust laws." Aaron Swartz (1986-2013)
  - aje403 8y ago
    You're very entitled. Go do it yourself or stop crying about what other people should do
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > Go do it yourself Who says that I do not work on such things already? (just perhaps in a somehwat different way than you might spontanously have in the back of your mind).
      - aje403 8y ago
        I have nothing on my mind in particular, I just like to call out lazy entitled people who think that others should do things they want for them, be it on the internet or in person
  - phaus 8y ago
    Exactly how much justice was there in Aaron's not having followed the unjust laws? He was a kind, brilliant person, barely out of childhood, and his life has come to an end. I admire what he did and I find the way he was treated criminal and deplorable. However, Its difficult to blame developers for not wanting to go to prison and/or be harassed to death.
macintux 8y ago
How in the world does media theft help alleviate the concern that Disney owns our culture? Breaking DRM won’t help Warner Brothers create a Mickey Mouse (or any other) universe to compete.

rdlecler1 8y ago

Counter argument: Would a movie like Star Wars lose it’s cultural value if anyone could make a star wars movie — creating so many rip-offs that the soul of the original was lost? I think Disney has been a good custodian of the franchise and might not have invested so much into it if they didn’t have that exclusivity.

rangibaby 8y ago
I don’t think so. Someone would make a better one and the original would eventually fade into obscurity (cf. the original fairytales that were made into Disney movies)
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  Who is going to make a better one if no studio can accumulate enough capital to make large big-budget bets? Last I checked, very few small budget studios can make big blockbuster movies. The reason Disney can is because they have accumulated capital with their IP and are backed by investors who recognize the value of that IP.
  - oblio 8y ago
    So you're saying that in a free market no one could get the capital without the IP? I'm sorry, but I feel that's ridiculous. They could still have access to popular actors, directors, screenwriters. Franchises aren't everything. Otherwise the highest grossing movies wouldn't be Avatar and Titanic :)
    - qbrass 8y ago
      Fox didn't gamble $250 million on Avatar or $200 million on Titanic without something else paying the bills.
jerf 8y ago
Personally, I'd be happy with a regime where copyright lasts, say, 20 years, but trademarks last as long as you are actively using them and defending them. This would mean that "Star Wars" would fall out of copyright, and anyone could sell Star Wars DVD/Blurays at whatever cost they like, could use the material in various creative ways at will, but nobody could actually make "Star Wars 24: The Cheap Sucking Cash Grab That's Totally The Next Star Wars, So Fork It Over Moviegoing Slobs". You'd have to call it something else that makes it very clear that it's not actually "Star Wars". What Disney wants is to grab everything it can. Not that surprising. What it needs is to be able to protect its reputation and for its name brand to mean something. That does not require multi-century copyright terms... it requires trademarks. Making me less happy, I'd be comfortable with a regime where copyrights expire after 10/20 years or something, but companies can indefinitely renew them on an exponentially-growing basis every decade or something, making companies have to decide whether they are actively using a property or whether it's more economical to just let it go. The major problem with the copyright term being so long isn't that it covers Steamboat Willie... the major problem is that it covers everything. An absurd amount of culture is not just tied up in copyrights, but copyrights that literally nobody knows where they reside, because who wants to track the rights to some kids book from 80 years ago carefully or something?