4 ms·

>I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. Likewise for actors vs TV shows. There is a crucial difference

by Levitz 5y ago

>I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. Likewise for actors vs TV shows. There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Oh there will be loads of subtle differences. I wasn't claiming it to be a perfect comparison but rather than illustration of how IP is complicated and how a single piece of work might have multiple different strands of IP against it. > Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. Nothing we create is done so in a cultural vacuum. So I agree with your statement but not really sure how it applies (or even adds anything) to the discussion. > It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. I made that same point too > Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. Here is my issue. We cannot and should not make specific exceptions for specific companies because we do not like them. I fully agree there needs to be a copyright reform that works for consumers, but it should be applied equally for everyone and not have some rules for one company but Disney has a different set of rules "because they're bad". > There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer. This is a philosophical point and one that would be fun to debate in the pub over a pint. However it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.

by Levitz 5y ago

hnlmorg 5y ago

> There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Oh there will be loads of subtle differences. I wasn't claiming it to be a perfect comparison but rather than illustration of how IP is complicated and how a single piece of work might have multiple different strands of IP against it. > Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. Nothing we create is done so in a cultural vacuum. So I agree with your statement but not really sure how it applies (or even adds anything) to the discussion. > It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. I made that same point too > Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. Here is my issue. We cannot and should not make specific exceptions for specific companies because we do not like them. I fully agree there needs to be a copyright reform that works for consumers, but it should be applied equally for everyone and not have some rules for one company but Disney has a different set of rules "because they're bad". > There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer. This is a philosophical point and one that would be fun to debate in the pub over a pint. However it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.