3 ms·

Why does that matter so much? Why is it so important for someone to be able to sell a ringtone from a movie they didn't create? Why is it so important for someo

by talmand 13y ago

Why does that matter so much? Why is it so important for someone to be able to sell a ringtone from a movie they didn't create? Why is it so important for someone to make money off a derivative work based off of the work of someone else? Besides, there are examples of people making money off of derivatives of popular content they didn't create. It's just a fine line between making a copy and creating a derivative. I think the thing I've been missing is so far is because Disney is the example, which is a big company, and big companies are evil right? Let me toss a wrinkle into that logic. Newly graduated college student makes an animated short. Took months, maybe years, to get it done. Took weeks, maybe months, of hard work to get it visible to the public. Public loves the film and wishes to buy a copy. Someone makes a "derivative" work that copies the characterizations of the original animation. For some reason, derivative work becomes popular. Original creator loses out. Screw the original creator right? You do realize that the most likely outcome of allowing derivative works to happen too soon is that the big companies with their huge resources will swoop in and wipe out the small guys in no time flat? You think I'm defending big companies with these statements? I'm defending all creators regardless if they are Disney or the dirt-poor artist down the street. If you have a problem with Disney being able to continue making money from their original characters, despite some of their characters being based off previous stories in the public domain, because copyright laws keep getting changed then you're problem is with the system that allows such things. Attack the system, not creators because you'll almost always come across as unfair to them in some way.

smaudet 13y ago
Lets blow a hole in your lack of logic - The issue is not one of making money, it is of time-frame and development. A) Small companies have equal opportunity to trash big companies by copying in a 'free-for-all' scenario, sure the big companies have a theoretical advantage, but the small guys outnumber the big guys, and they also can all copy right back. Its not the issue you imagine it to be. B) Selling a ringtone has nothing to do with how long that ringtone was someone's exclusive property. Lets use your example again, because you managed to so thoroughly ignore the actual possibilities: A graduate student makes an animated short. He profits for a couple years, great. Because copyrights expire, and the student has moved on, a derivative takes off several years later. Student gains a lot of latent interest as a result. In your scenario, the student never loses copyright. Derivative gets sued, student never gains interest, at best gains notoriety, and is never heard from again. Which scenario do YOU think is better? I'm going to go with the one that doesn't have artificially extended copyright.
sp332 13y ago
Disney is the example, which is a big company, and big companies are evil right? No, just a few :) My problem with Disney is that in protecting their own interests, they also extended copyright on tons of other people's works as well. http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976 http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976 I believe the original creator, big or small, is not as important as the rest of the people in society. If big corporations make most of the money from derivative works, that doesn't prevent other people from making their own as well. But copyright means there is a state-granted monopoly on nearly all creative works. If you have a problem with Disney... then your problem is with the system that allows such things. How would you "fix the system" so that only certain people get a say? Disney can lobby if they want, I just want them to lobby for different things.

by talmand 13y ago

smaudet 13y ago

Lets blow a hole in your lack of logic - The issue is not one of making money, it is of time-frame and development. A) Small companies have equal opportunity to trash big companies by copying in a 'free-for-all' scenario, sure the big companies have a theoretical advantage, but the small guys outnumber the big guys, and they also can all copy right back. Its not the issue you imagine it to be. B) Selling a ringtone has nothing to do with how long that ringtone was someone's exclusive property. Lets use your example again, because you managed to so thoroughly ignore the actual possibilities: A graduate student makes an animated short. He profits for a couple years, great. Because copyrights expire, and the student has moved on, a derivative takes off several years later. Student gains a lot of latent interest as a result. In your scenario, the student never loses copyright. Derivative gets sued, student never gains interest, at best gains notoriety, and is never heard from again. Which scenario do YOU think is better? I'm going to go with the one that doesn't have artificially extended copyright.

sp332 13y ago

Disney is the example, which is a big company, and big companies are evil right? No, just a few :) My problem with Disney is that in protecting their own interests, they also extended copyright on tons of other people's works as well. http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976 http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976 I believe the original creator, big or small, is not as important as the rest of the people in society. If big corporations make most of the money from derivative works, that doesn't prevent other people from making their own as well. But copyright means there is a state-granted monopoly on nearly all creative works. If you have a problem with Disney... then your problem is with the system that allows such things. How would you "fix the system" so that only certain people get a say? Disney can lobby if they want, I just want them to lobby for different things.