4 ms·

"What's that? You mean in 2013 people will be able to read my book for free? Well fuck it, I'll just go have another drink instead." (Actually to be fair, I

by jlgreco 14y ago

"What's that? You mean in 2013 people will be able to read my book for free? Well fuck it, I'll just go have another drink instead." (Actually to be fair, I don't think "instead" is quite the right word there.)

DanBC 14y ago
Don't joke. Disney honestly think like that. When home video was introduced they couldn't get their heads round the fact that they wouldn't know how many people would be sitting round the tv watching a movie, and thus Disney wouldn't be able to charge all of these people. Some of them would be watching for free! Disney have introduced things like single watch video tape (need to be sent back somewhere to be rewound); limited life DVD (special materials, sent in sealed envelope, as soon as it's opened it starts to oxidise); and they still have pretty horrible unskippable trailers and warnings and etc.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Eh, in the case of Disney it seems more like they are worried about copyright terms for their stuff ending imminently, not in a hundred or so years. That's why they only threw on a few more decades (of course I expect them to go at it again when that extra time runs out) and didn't start that fight much earlier than they did. They still made that stuff after all, even during a time when copyrights were shorter, then they decided to get it raised.
  - 300bps 14y ago
    My objection to Disney is that (as the article states) they built a large portion of their business by taking works in the public domain and creating derivative works. They then slammed the door behind them by repeatedly lobbying for extended copyrights any time their 85 year old Mickey Mouse comes close to being out of copyright. There's a reason why the copyright extension act is commonly referred to as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
    - dublinben 14y ago
      The worst part about these extensions is that Disney's valuable characters are all (perpetually) protected by trademark. Extending the copyright on hundred year old movies only prevents them from being widely enjoyed.
- 300bps 14y ago
  >limited life DVD I remember well the original DIVX at Circuit City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX I honestly think that failure was a huge reason why Circuit City failed. They built up so much ill will from a technically literate audience.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    DIVX is a fascinating piece of history. One of the first "always on" DRM systems meant for common consumers, and it failed spectacularly.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Wow. I was talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay) so there's a few different systems around. > Flexplay is a trademark for a DVD-compatible optical video disc format with a time-limited (usually 48-hour) playback time. They are often described as "self-destructing" although the disc merely turns black and does not physically disintegrate. The same technology was used by Disney's Buena Vista Home Entertainment under the name ez-D.
- Pxtl 14y ago
  Actually, in recent years Disney has been hitting it out of the park, at least for children's features, when it comes to their DVD front-matter. They respect the "title menu" button and even pop up the absurdly-named "fastplay" option before the trailers explaining that you just hit "enter" to jump to the DVD menu (the ridiculous "fastplay" option really means "play all the trailers then immediately play the feature film, like you'd experience at the movie theatre - no menu appears". While it's got some silly doublespeak there, the end result is that the DVD actually lets me skip the trailers. I have a lot of other children's movies that I have to mash the "skip" button or even (horror of horrors) have to fast forward the front-matter.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    That's good to hear!
- jopof 14y ago
  You are referring to Disney a corporation, not Disney or any other person.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mtgx 14y ago
  Big difference between a company like Disney and an author. Copyrights should NEVER be transferable. At best, large corporations should enter limited time partnerships to promote their books (or music).
  - tsotha 14y ago
    If copyrights aren't transferable authors can't sell their books. That's not going to work very well.
    - belorn 14y ago
      Authors already do exclusive deals with publisher. Such deals do not need to transfer copyright at all, as its all under contract law. If I make a contract with someone that says I get exclusivity to publish and sell their works, and in return I give them some money, in what way do we need to do copyright assignments?
      - cygx 14y ago
        If I make a contract with someone that says I get exclusivity to publish and sell their works, and in return I give them some money, in what way do we need to do copyright assignments? You don't, and in Germany, there's no such thing as copyright assignment - Urheberrecht is part of the author's moral rights and inalienable[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Transfer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Transf...
      - tsotha 14y ago
        As a practical matter, how is that different than assigning the copyright?

by jlgreco 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago

Don't joke. Disney honestly think like that. When home video was introduced they couldn't get their heads round the fact that they wouldn't know how many people would be sitting round the tv watching a movie, and thus Disney wouldn't be able to charge all of these people. Some of them would be watching for free! Disney have introduced things like single watch video tape (need to be sent back somewhere to be rewound); limited life DVD (special materials, sent in sealed envelope, as soon as it's opened it starts to oxidise); and they still have pretty horrible unskippable trailers and warnings and etc.

jlgreco 14y ago
Eh, in the case of Disney it seems more like they are worried about copyright terms for their stuff ending imminently, not in a hundred or so years. That's why they only threw on a few more decades (of course I expect them to go at it again when that extra time runs out) and didn't start that fight much earlier than they did. They still made that stuff after all, even during a time when copyrights were shorter, then they decided to get it raised.
- 300bps 14y ago
  My objection to Disney is that (as the article states) they built a large portion of their business by taking works in the public domain and creating derivative works. They then slammed the door behind them by repeatedly lobbying for extended copyrights any time their 85 year old Mickey Mouse comes close to being out of copyright. There's a reason why the copyright extension act is commonly referred to as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
  - dublinben 14y ago
    The worst part about these extensions is that Disney's valuable characters are all (perpetually) protected by trademark. Extending the copyright on hundred year old movies only prevents them from being widely enjoyed.
300bps 14y ago
>limited life DVD I remember well the original DIVX at Circuit City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX I honestly think that failure was a huge reason why Circuit City failed. They built up so much ill will from a technically literate audience.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  DIVX is a fascinating piece of history. One of the first "always on" DRM systems meant for common consumers, and it failed spectacularly.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Wow. I was talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay) so there's a few different systems around. > Flexplay is a trademark for a DVD-compatible optical video disc format with a time-limited (usually 48-hour) playback time. They are often described as "self-destructing" although the disc merely turns black and does not physically disintegrate. The same technology was used by Disney's Buena Vista Home Entertainment under the name ez-D.
Pxtl 14y ago
Actually, in recent years Disney has been hitting it out of the park, at least for children's features, when it comes to their DVD front-matter. They respect the "title menu" button and even pop up the absurdly-named "fastplay" option before the trailers explaining that you just hit "enter" to jump to the DVD menu (the ridiculous "fastplay" option really means "play all the trailers then immediately play the feature film, like you'd experience at the movie theatre - no menu appears". While it's got some silly doublespeak there, the end result is that the DVD actually lets me skip the trailers. I have a lot of other children's movies that I have to mash the "skip" button or even (horror of horrors) have to fast forward the front-matter.
- DanBC 14y ago
  That's good to hear!
jopof 14y ago
You are referring to Disney a corporation, not Disney or any other person.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mtgx 14y ago
Big difference between a company like Disney and an author. Copyrights should NEVER be transferable. At best, large corporations should enter limited time partnerships to promote their books (or music).
- tsotha 14y ago
  If copyrights aren't transferable authors can't sell their books. That's not going to work very well.
  - belorn 14y ago
    Authors already do exclusive deals with publisher. Such deals do not need to transfer copyright at all, as its all under contract law. If I make a contract with someone that says I get exclusivity to publish and sell their works, and in return I give them some money, in what way do we need to do copyright assignments?
    - cygx 14y ago
      If I make a contract with someone that says I get exclusivity to publish and sell their works, and in return I give them some money, in what way do we need to do copyright assignments? You don't, and in Germany, there's no such thing as copyright assignment - Urheberrecht is part of the author's moral rights and inalienable[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Transfer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Transf...
    - tsotha 14y ago
      As a practical matter, how is that different than assigning the copyright?