8 ms·

No they won't. I do not believe for a minute big content will let that happen. They should. Not doing it is theft. Disney made great use of the Brothers Gri

No they won't. I do not believe for a minute big content will let that happen. They should. Not doing it is theft. Disney made great use of the Brothers Grimm, and has no interest in giving back. All greed and the desire to avoid another Disney from happening. FREE THE MOUSE

ddingus 8y ago
Have a contrary view? I would love to read it. Sell me.
jjeaff 8y ago
What is the argument for not protecting copyright? What public good does making Mickey Mouse public domain serve?
- krapp 8y ago
  It's best for society and culture as a whole not to have the expressions of that culture and the archetypes that shape it be controlled by corporations and usable only for monetary gain, at least not forever.
  - khazhoux 8y ago
    You stated the anti-copyright position but did not provide an argument.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      That is actually the limited copyright position. The argument is robustness of culture, not boardroom culture. Lots of creators coming up now. Low bar to entry. New, relevant works is what they need to take their place in society. Some will anyway.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > What is the argument for not protecting copyright? Copyright is censorship.
  - dehrmann 8y ago
    The fair use doctrine provides enough outs that it's not outright censorship.
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > The fair use doctrine provides enough outs that it's not outright censorship. In Germany's analogue to the US-American copyright law (Urheberrecht), there exists no fair use doctrine. EDIT: And even if we ignore this: a little less censorship is still a censorship.
      - dehrmann 8y ago
        There's a balance to strike between intellectual property and censorship.
  - khazhoux 8y ago
    So is your position that all copyright should be eliminated? Or, that censorship is good but only for a limited amount of time? Or...?
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > So is your position that all copyright should be eliminated? Or, that censorship is good but only for a limited amount of time? Or...? I just stated a logical fact. Understanding the interference rules of ZFC does not enable you to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Understanding the standard model does not enable you to build a transmutation engine. Understanding that copyright is censorship does not enable you to come up with a visionary plan what the best political steps are to handle this truth. --- But I personally think that it would at least be a small step into the right direction if people would internalize that free speech and copyright are contradictory to each other.
- aaron695 8y ago
  We can have even more derivative movies and less new creations as we further dull the minds of the masses and keep releasing pulp 'creations' in safe doses like a slow heroin drip so no one gets challenged and has to leave their safe space?
- robin_reala 8y ago
  Disney have built their company around appropriating and reworking public domain content (“Snow White” to name just one famous one). Why shouldn’t others get the chance to produce something just as good?
  - khazhoux 8y ago
    They already have that chance -- they can grab any existing PD work and go to town.
    - robin_reala 8y ago
      And they’ll be able to do the same with Steamboat Willie when it arrives in PD. What’s the difference?
    - ddingus 8y ago
      Absolutely. It's Disney's turn. Everyone has one. Keeping all that static serves all of us poorly. Who knows what may come? That's the point. That MADE Disney, BTW. And Disney will be just fine. It's the little guy somewhere who has a vision that won't be, unless we allow the same process to play out again.
- pawelmurias 8y ago
  Everybody could make Mickey Mouse stories/books/etc.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Imagine that people said that about Brothers Grimm and other pre-20th century works -- we wouldn't have most of the Disney films we do.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    Imagine if the heirs to the Brothers Grimm were still collecting checks on their stories. Imagine if Shakespeare was still copyrighted and you had to pay the man each time you put on a play or taught the material in class.
    - kensai 8y ago
      "Will Freeman lives a serene and luxurious lifestyle devoid of responsibility in London thanks to substantial royalties left to him from a successful Christmas song composed by his father." Heh, someone collecting money like this was the story of "About a Boy" with Hugh Grant (2002).
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > Imagine if Shakespeare was still copyrighted and you had to pay the man each time you put on a play or taught the material in class. So Shakespeare wouldn't be used in schools, that would be great!
- gweinberg 8y ago
  Well, it allows people to make Mickey Mouse stories. Conceivably, some of them might be good, at least by some standard of goodness.
- dannypgh 8y ago
  The enforcement of copyright laws is something that is paid for with public funds and resources (indeed, the courts themselves) even though a small fraction of the population recieves any direct benefit. The burden of proof should be on copyright holders to explain why the state furthers the public good by requiring the courts (and police, customs, etc.) to enforce these laws. Legally in the United States, the power to establish copyright is in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This makes indefinite copyright unconstitutional.
- ddingus 8y ago
  The same public good the Brothers Grimm contributed, and that Disney made great use of. Share and share alike, otherwise it's pulling the ladder up, rather selfish, and a theft from all of us. Copyright was never intended to be infinite. Every work is derivative. When we don't return works to the public domain, culture gets stale, owned by big players. Rambo 13, 14, 15... Rip, mix, burn has lowered the bar for creation. When we do that, and expand the pool of works to draw from, we empower people to add to culture outside the big players and whatever boardroom vision they may have.

ddingus 8y ago

Have a contrary view? I would love to read it. Sell me.

jjeaff 8y ago

What is the argument for not protecting copyright? What public good does making Mickey Mouse public domain serve?

krapp 8y ago
It's best for society and culture as a whole not to have the expressions of that culture and the archetypes that shape it be controlled by corporations and usable only for monetary gain, at least not forever.
- khazhoux 8y ago
  You stated the anti-copyright position but did not provide an argument.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    That is actually the limited copyright position. The argument is robustness of culture, not boardroom culture. Lots of creators coming up now. Low bar to entry. New, relevant works is what they need to take their place in society. Some will anyway.
wolfgke 8y ago
> What is the argument for not protecting copyright? Copyright is censorship.
- dehrmann 8y ago
  The fair use doctrine provides enough outs that it's not outright censorship.
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > The fair use doctrine provides enough outs that it's not outright censorship. In Germany's analogue to the US-American copyright law (Urheberrecht), there exists no fair use doctrine. EDIT: And even if we ignore this: a little less censorship is still a censorship.
    - dehrmann 8y ago
      There's a balance to strike between intellectual property and censorship.
- khazhoux 8y ago
  So is your position that all copyright should be eliminated? Or, that censorship is good but only for a limited amount of time? Or...?
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > So is your position that all copyright should be eliminated? Or, that censorship is good but only for a limited amount of time? Or...? I just stated a logical fact. Understanding the interference rules of ZFC does not enable you to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Understanding the standard model does not enable you to build a transmutation engine. Understanding that copyright is censorship does not enable you to come up with a visionary plan what the best political steps are to handle this truth. --- But I personally think that it would at least be a small step into the right direction if people would internalize that free speech and copyright are contradictory to each other.
aaron695 8y ago
We can have even more derivative movies and less new creations as we further dull the minds of the masses and keep releasing pulp 'creations' in safe doses like a slow heroin drip so no one gets challenged and has to leave their safe space?
robin_reala 8y ago
Disney have built their company around appropriating and reworking public domain content (“Snow White” to name just one famous one). Why shouldn’t others get the chance to produce something just as good?
- khazhoux 8y ago
  They already have that chance -- they can grab any existing PD work and go to town.
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    And they’ll be able to do the same with Steamboat Willie when it arrives in PD. What’s the difference?
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Absolutely. It's Disney's turn. Everyone has one. Keeping all that static serves all of us poorly. Who knows what may come? That's the point. That MADE Disney, BTW. And Disney will be just fine. It's the little guy somewhere who has a vision that won't be, unless we allow the same process to play out again.
pawelmurias 8y ago
Everybody could make Mickey Mouse stories/books/etc.
isostatic 8y ago
Imagine that people said that about Brothers Grimm and other pre-20th century works -- we wouldn't have most of the Disney films we do.
- astrodust 8y ago
  Imagine if the heirs to the Brothers Grimm were still collecting checks on their stories. Imagine if Shakespeare was still copyrighted and you had to pay the man each time you put on a play or taught the material in class.
  - kensai 8y ago
    "Will Freeman lives a serene and luxurious lifestyle devoid of responsibility in London thanks to substantial royalties left to him from a successful Christmas song composed by his father." Heh, someone collecting money like this was the story of "About a Boy" with Hugh Grant (2002).
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > Imagine if Shakespeare was still copyrighted and you had to pay the man each time you put on a play or taught the material in class. So Shakespeare wouldn't be used in schools, that would be great!
gweinberg 8y ago
Well, it allows people to make Mickey Mouse stories. Conceivably, some of them might be good, at least by some standard of goodness.
dannypgh 8y ago
The enforcement of copyright laws is something that is paid for with public funds and resources (indeed, the courts themselves) even though a small fraction of the population recieves any direct benefit. The burden of proof should be on copyright holders to explain why the state furthers the public good by requiring the courts (and police, customs, etc.) to enforce these laws. Legally in the United States, the power to establish copyright is in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This makes indefinite copyright unconstitutional.
ddingus 8y ago
The same public good the Brothers Grimm contributed, and that Disney made great use of. Share and share alike, otherwise it's pulling the ladder up, rather selfish, and a theft from all of us. Copyright was never intended to be infinite. Every work is derivative. When we don't return works to the public domain, culture gets stale, owned by big players. Rambo 13, 14, 15... Rip, mix, burn has lowered the bar for creation. When we do that, and expand the pool of works to draw from, we empower people to add to culture outside the big players and whatever boardroom vision they may have.