3 ms·

Culture is public. By arguing that it should be privately owned, you are effectively saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to participate. Disney's bus

by cwkoss 7y ago

Culture is public. By arguing that it should be privately owned, you are effectively saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to participate. Disney's business model has been destroying the potential of thousands of great artists who failed to reach cultural relevancy because their parents were barely making ends meet and couldn't afford to buy in, and the cultural language is now locked behind a gate with a toll (if it can be licensed at all). Why are the greedy profit motivations of a giant multinational corporation more important to you than poor children's cultural participation? You aren't being a rational realist, you are just being selfish and classist. Disney built their business on the back of the public domain. Every single great movie they made builds off the work of others. Now they are trying to silo these once-free properties behind IP laws to shut the door behind themselves. Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality.

wolco 7y ago
Any personal photos you and your family take are part of culture. Should they be public or do you get to decide? Much of culture is private. Poor people not participating in Disney content doesn't take into account the content on public tv or libruaries that will loan dvds either. The price of a month of Disney+ will make things cheaper as well.
- takeda 7y ago
  That's not how it works, copyright doesn't protect privacy, those are two separate things. Disney is a company that took folk stories that lived in public domain, packaged it and released as their own. That's ok, the works were public domain anyway. The problem is that after that, they continue to lobby in a way that no future works will ever enter public domain. Our constitution says that copyright needs to expire, there is a loophole though, because it doesn't say when it should expire, so every time Mickey Mouse copyright is about to expire they lobby the congress to extend it further. The copyright originally lasted 10 years, now it's 120 years after author's death.
quacker 7y ago
> Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality. You sort of have a point, since this is Disney we're considering, but this is a slippery slope. Most _everything_ is derivative work. Should I pirate all commercial software that's powered by open source software? Should I never pay for a modern book with a hero's journey storyline simply because it's not original? And I shouldn't pay artists for their covers or remixes of other songs? So unoriginal. And why should I buy tickets to any new Batman movie? Batman's part of our culture and the story is probably taken from the comics. And I should never profit from my business unless it's MY original idea. If you dislike Disney (for good reason), then boycott them. But that doesn't give you the _right_ to pirate their content nor should you encourage others to pirate.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. If Disney only made derivative movies and didn't lobby to to make IP laws more strict and punitive, I would not think it was immoral to give them your money. Consumers should consider paying for IP an investment in the creator's future work. If a creator made something you enjoy, fill their pockets so they can make another great thing. If the creator is known to damage society with their profits, giving them money should be avoided. Does paying for (before viewing) vs pirating a Disney film have any meaningful effect on the quality of future films? The current system optimizes for movies that look good in a 30-second trailer, because you can't get your money back if the movie is bad. If you really like a movie you pirated, you should buy it to send the signal. I'd argue paying for any movie before you see it contributes to the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades.
  - quacker 7y ago
    > You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. I wonder how it is to feel so entitled that you see nothing wrong with this - to think that you deserve that content and that all the cast and crew deserve nothing in return. > the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades. You must also have a very narrow definition of art to believe this.
planetzero 7y ago
"Culture is public. By arguing that it should be privately owned, you are effectively saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to participate." There are plenty of options, like going to your public library, that don't involve copyright infringement. How are poor children able to download a movie illegally from the Internet, yet can't don't have any money to purchase it legally? "Why are the greedy profit motivations of a giant multinational corporation more important to you than poor children's cultural participation? You aren't being a rational realist, you are just being selfish and classist." You could say the same thing about anything: you are depriving a poor family a home if they can't move into yours without paying you, you greedy classist! "Disney built their business on the back of the public domain. Every single great movie they made builds off the work of others." Yet, the public domain movie wasn't nearly as popular nor do we even remember them. This means they added value. You also failed to mention all of the jobs Disney provides. Should all of these people be deprived a living (and possibly lose their homes? "Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality." Can you name the original works? If not, they probably weren't that good.

by cwkoss 7y ago

wolco 7y ago

Any personal photos you and your family take are part of culture. Should they be public or do you get to decide? Much of culture is private. Poor people not participating in Disney content doesn't take into account the content on public tv or libruaries that will loan dvds either. The price of a month of Disney+ will make things cheaper as well.

takeda 7y ago
That's not how it works, copyright doesn't protect privacy, those are two separate things. Disney is a company that took folk stories that lived in public domain, packaged it and released as their own. That's ok, the works were public domain anyway. The problem is that after that, they continue to lobby in a way that no future works will ever enter public domain. Our constitution says that copyright needs to expire, there is a loophole though, because it doesn't say when it should expire, so every time Mickey Mouse copyright is about to expire they lobby the congress to extend it further. The copyright originally lasted 10 years, now it's 120 years after author's death.

quacker 7y ago

> Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality. You sort of have a point, since this is Disney we're considering, but this is a slippery slope. Most _everything_ is derivative work. Should I pirate all commercial software that's powered by open source software? Should I never pay for a modern book with a hero's journey storyline simply because it's not original? And I shouldn't pay artists for their covers or remixes of other songs? So unoriginal. And why should I buy tickets to any new Batman movie? Batman's part of our culture and the story is probably taken from the comics. And I should never profit from my business unless it's MY original idea. If you dislike Disney (for good reason), then boycott them. But that doesn't give you the _right_ to pirate their content nor should you encourage others to pirate.

cwkoss 7y ago
You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. If Disney only made derivative movies and didn't lobby to to make IP laws more strict and punitive, I would not think it was immoral to give them your money. Consumers should consider paying for IP an investment in the creator's future work. If a creator made something you enjoy, fill their pockets so they can make another great thing. If the creator is known to damage society with their profits, giving them money should be avoided. Does paying for (before viewing) vs pirating a Disney film have any meaningful effect on the quality of future films? The current system optimizes for movies that look good in a 30-second trailer, because you can't get your money back if the movie is bad. If you really like a movie you pirated, you should buy it to send the signal. I'd argue paying for any movie before you see it contributes to the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades.
- quacker 7y ago
  > You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. I wonder how it is to feel so entitled that you see nothing wrong with this - to think that you deserve that content and that all the cast and crew deserve nothing in return. > the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades. You must also have a very narrow definition of art to believe this.

planetzero 7y ago

"Culture is public. By arguing that it should be privately owned, you are effectively saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to participate." There are plenty of options, like going to your public library, that don't involve copyright infringement. How are poor children able to download a movie illegally from the Internet, yet can't don't have any money to purchase it legally? "Why are the greedy profit motivations of a giant multinational corporation more important to you than poor children's cultural participation? You aren't being a rational realist, you are just being selfish and classist." You could say the same thing about anything: you are depriving a poor family a home if they can't move into yours without paying you, you greedy classist! "Disney built their business on the back of the public domain. Every single great movie they made builds off the work of others." Yet, the public domain movie wasn't nearly as popular nor do we even remember them. This means they added value. You also failed to mention all of the jobs Disney provides. Should all of these people be deprived a living (and possibly lose their homes? "Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality." Can you name the original works? If not, they probably weren't that good.