4 ms·

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

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?
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  I like the idea of a property tax on IP after a certain period of time. Maybe something based on revenue of the ultimate rights holder. Would be hard to escalate that tax from disuse however since you could trivially do something.
  - jerf 8y ago
    I wouldn't escalate on disuse, just straight-up time. Exponential I chose to make it cheap to hold on to for a couple of decades, but by the time a company is claiming something for the 80th or 90th year, they better be doing something pretty darned awesome and profitable with it to justify keeping it out of the public domain. And if they are... I really don't mind. I'm a bit less incensed at the fundamental idea of "culture being locked up"; if something is being maintained as Star Wars is, for instance, let Disney have it for as long as they can homestead it, basically. I'm personally far more aggrieved about the pile of stuff that nobody owns and nobody particularly wants, but is locked up because Disney wants to own Steamboat Willy. My pragmatic solution is to basically let them, but to do so with much, much less collateral damage.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kevinh 8y ago
People are still making well-regarded Sherlock Holmes stories.

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?

rdlecler1 8y ago
I like the idea of a property tax on IP after a certain period of time. Maybe something based on revenue of the ultimate rights holder. Would be hard to escalate that tax from disuse however since you could trivially do something.
- jerf 8y ago
  I wouldn't escalate on disuse, just straight-up time. Exponential I chose to make it cheap to hold on to for a couple of decades, but by the time a company is claiming something for the 80th or 90th year, they better be doing something pretty darned awesome and profitable with it to justify keeping it out of the public domain. And if they are... I really don't mind. I'm a bit less incensed at the fundamental idea of "culture being locked up"; if something is being maintained as Star Wars is, for instance, let Disney have it for as long as they can homestead it, basically. I'm personally far more aggrieved about the pile of stuff that nobody owns and nobody particularly wants, but is locked up because Disney wants to own Steamboat Willy. My pragmatic solution is to basically let them, but to do so with much, much less collateral damage.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kevinh 8y ago

People are still making well-regarded Sherlock Holmes stories.