4 ms·

How absolutely ridiculous. As far as I'm aware Disney was not using this property and intentionally shut it down years ago. This is akin to a dead author from h

How absolutely ridiculous. As far as I'm aware Disney was not using this property and intentionally shut it down years ago. This is akin to a dead author from hundreds of years ago coming back from the grave to arrest you for posting this book online. Arresting three people over this benefits society in no way whatsoever, and everyone involved in doing so should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

namlem 5y ago
I agree. Copyrights that are no longer in use for a certain period should expire IMO.
- throwawayninja 5y ago
  My favorite variant of this is copyright issuance costs double/multiply by some X>1.0 every year after some N years of a flat rate. If your product is actually amazingly profitable you'll have the money to keep the copyright longer than most people, but eventually the costs will catch up with you. Unless you've invented a product that can double in price every year, guaranteed.
bitwize 5y ago
Disney is the rightsholder. They are free to do with this property as they please, including shutting it down completely with no hope of revival. No one else has this right, except as licensed by Disney. The fact that it was shut down does not change copyright law, which these people were violating.
- KyeRussell 5y ago
  The person you’re replying to is making a common sense argument (“a law that allows this is faulty”). “Yeah, well, it’s still legal” does not add to the discussion at all. Nobody is genuinely concerned about the legality of Disney’s actions. Rather, Disney had a clear history of influencing legalisation to suit its interests.
  - aaron695 5y ago
- hedora 5y ago
  ...proving that obeying copyright law is morally reprehensible?
- kinos 5y ago
  What do you acquire by having this opinion?
  - bitwize 5y ago
    Nothing, it's just that if it's illegitimate to enforce copyright in this case, then copyright itself has no meaning. Consider Song of the South, a movie so controversial that Disney wants to bury it. As the copyright holder they have every right to do so to protect their reputation. Because copyright, especially in civil-law countries, is bound up with the broader concept of authors' rights, including your right to protect your reputation as an author, the right to completely cease any further publication of a protected work is intrinsic to copyright itself; without that right, the concept of copyright falls apart. And if we abolish copyright because it's meaningless -- a move that would be curiously popular among programmers but unpopular among other creative professionals -- how are professionals in art, music, literature, etc. going to put food on the table? Do we just say "let them drive Uber and pursue their art as a hobby"?
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    A sense of moral superiority for their 'cut throat rationality'
  - xxxxx1234 5y ago
- krolden 5y ago
  Isn't that called being a copyright troll?
echlebek 5y ago
Damn right. This is cowardly bullying. It's morally repugnant. These people should be free to make their online penguin game without fear of police violence at the behest of a mega-conglomerate. That ain't freedom.
- coldacid 5y ago
  >Damn right. This is cowardly bullying. It's morally repugnant. And that's entirely par for the course for Disney.

namlem 5y ago

I agree. Copyrights that are no longer in use for a certain period should expire IMO.

throwawayninja 5y ago
My favorite variant of this is copyright issuance costs double/multiply by some X>1.0 every year after some N years of a flat rate. If your product is actually amazingly profitable you'll have the money to keep the copyright longer than most people, but eventually the costs will catch up with you. Unless you've invented a product that can double in price every year, guaranteed.

bitwize 5y ago

Disney is the rightsholder. They are free to do with this property as they please, including shutting it down completely with no hope of revival. No one else has this right, except as licensed by Disney. The fact that it was shut down does not change copyright law, which these people were violating.

KyeRussell 5y ago
The person you’re replying to is making a common sense argument (“a law that allows this is faulty”). “Yeah, well, it’s still legal” does not add to the discussion at all. Nobody is genuinely concerned about the legality of Disney’s actions. Rather, Disney had a clear history of influencing legalisation to suit its interests.
- aaron695 5y ago
hedora 5y ago
...proving that obeying copyright law is morally reprehensible?
kinos 5y ago
What do you acquire by having this opinion?
- bitwize 5y ago
  Nothing, it's just that if it's illegitimate to enforce copyright in this case, then copyright itself has no meaning. Consider Song of the South, a movie so controversial that Disney wants to bury it. As the copyright holder they have every right to do so to protect their reputation. Because copyright, especially in civil-law countries, is bound up with the broader concept of authors' rights, including your right to protect your reputation as an author, the right to completely cease any further publication of a protected work is intrinsic to copyright itself; without that right, the concept of copyright falls apart. And if we abolish copyright because it's meaningless -- a move that would be curiously popular among programmers but unpopular among other creative professionals -- how are professionals in art, music, literature, etc. going to put food on the table? Do we just say "let them drive Uber and pursue their art as a hobby"?
- diordiderot 5y ago
  A sense of moral superiority for their 'cut throat rationality'
- xxxxx1234 5y ago
krolden 5y ago
Isn't that called being a copyright troll?

echlebek 5y ago

Damn right. This is cowardly bullying. It's morally repugnant. These people should be free to make their online penguin game without fear of police violence at the behest of a mega-conglomerate. That ain't freedom.

coldacid 5y ago
>Damn right. This is cowardly bullying. It's morally repugnant. And that's entirely par for the course for Disney.