3 ms·
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
by 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 agoMy 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 agoThe 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.