5 ms·

> It protects original works of creation Disney.

tptacek 13y ago
Disney paid $210MM to produce _Brave_, which money went not only to creatives, animators, and movie production types, but also to software developers, testers, devops teams, and network administrators.
- icambron 13y ago
  I agree that Disney should receive copyright protection on its new works. My complaint (and I assume the parent's) is the part where they keep that copyright indefinitely through retroactive extensions. It's not supposed to be a permanent rent, regardless of what they do with the money.
- Peaker 13y ago
  And nobody is now allowed to create any derivative work to benefit society for the next ~200 years (or perpetually, if Disney has their way). Ironic, since virtually all of Disney's works are based on public domain works that they themselves would be banned from using if their bought laws had existed then.
- zizee 13y ago
  And how much do they spend lobbying in order to cheat their way out of releasing their works into the public domain?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I don't think Disney needs to do much lobbying to protect their copyright on _Brave_.
    - zizee 13y ago
      You are right, they didn't spend a cent on lobbying to protect Brave. They'd already bought and paid for their extensions across all their works already, now and into the future. Pretty good investment that.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Probably very little. The feeling in the wind seems to be that copyright should never end. And why should it? Other property rights don't end.
    - zizee 13y ago
      Because Intellectual Property is fundamentally different from Physical Property? Society grants IP rights as an exchange. Exclusive access granted for a period of time to allow people to profit from their work - then it goes public domain so that society is enriched in turn.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  Brave was an exception, or a turning point depending on how you see their later releases. A large number of Disney works have been "inspired by" other works. I'd estimate just under half, but this changes with every release. They do seem to be getting more original, but that seems to be mainly due to the Pixar team. The quote below was from 2002 when there were a total of ~45 Disney animated feature films. "a total of 28 films that have acknowledged sources outside of The Walt Disney Company itself, more than half of all the movies they've made to date."[1] There are now around 79 released feature films (Based on http://everything2.com/title/Disney+Animated+Features http://everything2.com/title/Disney+Animated+Features), of which 34 (to my count) are not original so it looks like they are slowly improving. Now they just need to stop making multiple sequels for everything... [1]: http://everything2.com/title/How+many+Disney+movies+are+actually+original+stories%253F http://everything2.com/title/How+many+Disney+movies+are+actu...
rayiner 13y ago
Say what you will about Disney, but I can spend a few dollars to buy a Disney product on iTunes, and my kid can watch a beautifully made cartoon without being bombarded with advertisements for cheap crap. That's more than I can say for most of the rest of the tech industry.
- Peaker 13y ago
  That is more a statement about iTunes than about Disney.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Not really. I could buy them on DVD too instead of iTunes. The point is that copyright enables the production of these beautifully produced cartoons using a business model that's a simple cash transaction. No advertising, no privacy-destroying user tracking, just cash in trade for a product.
    - zizee 13y ago
      Copyright is not a divine right, it is granted as part of an exchange. Part of that exchange is that the copyright is granted for a limited time, after which the public can use the IP how they want. If Disney and friends can change the deal to suit themselves, why shouldn't every consumer follow suit and make similar self-benefiting changes to the copyright deal and copy/consume Disney material without paying?
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      I could buy them on DVD too instead of iTunes. If you buy them on DVD or Blu-ray you will be bombarded by advertisements, and they were probably unskippable until Disney added a skip button and called it an invention (AKA "Disney Fast Play"). No advertising, no privacy-destroying user tracking, just cash in trade for a product. If only that were the case. Does iTunes state in its privacy policy or EULA that purchase and playback tracking data is not recorded or reported to content producers? What about consumer devices (connected Blu-ray players, smart TVs, etc.) that report back to their masters like the recently discovered LG smart TVs?

Disney paid $210MM to produce _Brave_, which money went not only to creatives, animators, and movie production types, but also to software developers, testers, devops teams, and network administrators.

icambron 13y ago
I agree that Disney should receive copyright protection on its new works. My complaint (and I assume the parent's) is the part where they keep that copyright indefinitely through retroactive extensions. It's not supposed to be a permanent rent, regardless of what they do with the money.
Peaker 13y ago
And nobody is now allowed to create any derivative work to benefit society for the next ~200 years (or perpetually, if Disney has their way). Ironic, since virtually all of Disney's works are based on public domain works that they themselves would be banned from using if their bought laws had existed then.
zizee 13y ago
And how much do they spend lobbying in order to cheat their way out of releasing their works into the public domain?
- tptacek 13y ago
  I don't think Disney needs to do much lobbying to protect their copyright on _Brave_.
  - zizee 13y ago
    You are right, they didn't spend a cent on lobbying to protect Brave. They'd already bought and paid for their extensions across all their works already, now and into the future. Pretty good investment that.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Probably very little. The feeling in the wind seems to be that copyright should never end. And why should it? Other property rights don't end.
  - zizee 13y ago
    Because Intellectual Property is fundamentally different from Physical Property? Society grants IP rights as an exchange. Exclusive access granted for a period of time to allow people to profit from their work - then it goes public domain so that society is enriched in turn.
Intermernet 13y ago
Brave was an exception, or a turning point depending on how you see their later releases. A large number of Disney works have been "inspired by" other works. I'd estimate just under half, but this changes with every release. They do seem to be getting more original, but that seems to be mainly due to the Pixar team. The quote below was from 2002 when there were a total of ~45 Disney animated feature films. "a total of 28 films that have acknowledged sources outside of The Walt Disney Company itself, more than half of all the movies they've made to date."[1] There are now around 79 released feature films (Based on http://everything2.com/title/Disney+Animated+Features http://everything2.com/title/Disney+Animated+Features), of which 34 (to my count) are not original so it looks like they are slowly improving. Now they just need to stop making multiple sequels for everything... [1]: http://everything2.com/title/How+many+Disney+movies+are+actually+original+stories%253F http://everything2.com/title/How+many+Disney+movies+are+actu...

rayiner 13y ago

Say what you will about Disney, but I can spend a few dollars to buy a Disney product on iTunes, and my kid can watch a beautifully made cartoon without being bombarded with advertisements for cheap crap. That's more than I can say for most of the rest of the tech industry.

Peaker 13y ago
That is more a statement about iTunes than about Disney.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Not really. I could buy them on DVD too instead of iTunes. The point is that copyright enables the production of these beautifully produced cartoons using a business model that's a simple cash transaction. No advertising, no privacy-destroying user tracking, just cash in trade for a product.
  - zizee 13y ago
    Copyright is not a divine right, it is granted as part of an exchange. Part of that exchange is that the copyright is granted for a limited time, after which the public can use the IP how they want. If Disney and friends can change the deal to suit themselves, why shouldn't every consumer follow suit and make similar self-benefiting changes to the copyright deal and copy/consume Disney material without paying?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    I could buy them on DVD too instead of iTunes. If you buy them on DVD or Blu-ray you will be bombarded by advertisements, and they were probably unskippable until Disney added a skip button and called it an invention (AKA "Disney Fast Play"). No advertising, no privacy-destroying user tracking, just cash in trade for a product. If only that were the case. Does iTunes state in its privacy policy or EULA that purchase and playback tracking data is not recorded or reported to content producers? What about consumer devices (connected Blu-ray players, smart TVs, etc.) that report back to their masters like the recently discovered LG smart TVs?