5 ms·

This could be a special case, since Disney has an official, named policy to make titles available for only limited periods of time, then they're put on moratori

by hga 13y ago

This could be a special case, since Disney has an official, named policy to make titles available for only limited periods of time, then they're put on moratorium for some years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault They're also the content creator, so....

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Disney employees are the content creators, no? You may find that point moot, I find it highly pertinent. People create artistic works. Copyright is supposedly - in it's base form - for those people (and the public) and not primarily intended to ensure shareholders get rich.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  You don't just stick a bunch of creative people in a room and get a movie, any more than you put 100 people in a field and get a factory. Yes, it's a creative endeavor, but (speaking as someone who works in film)95% of the input consists of grunt work, spread across technical specialties from accounting to schlepping things into and out of trucks. Even the writing, acting, directing involves tons of grunt work. Indeed, the whole skill of film/TV work is to aggregate the work of hundreds or thousands of people so as to make present an illusion of a few people engaging in (mostly) effortless natural behavior. Putting on my screenwriter hat (which is maybe 10% of my activity in this field), I very much want the option of selling my work to a producer for cash money. Money up front pays the bills. I have ownership interests in a few films too, but it isn't worth anything. since most films don't make any money this is sadly unexceptional. It's a brutal market, but also extremely egalitarian.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is here. Take a potter. His visual style, assuming it is distinct, bears copyright protection. Rightly so, then an upstart can't legally come in and reproduce his work and steal away his customers without having put in the work needed to create the design initially. But the copyright in that work doesn't, and shouldn't, bear any sense of protection towards the jobs of those that quarry the clay, or the steel-workers that make the steal used in the potter's tools. An entire network rests on the potters creative work, but the copyright is there to protect only the creative portion. If the potter is producing work without a distinct style then there will be no effective copyright in it's visual appearance and still all the others will get paid if there is demand for the product. So?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is. You say the creativity resides with the employees who make the film, but my point is that the creation is only possible through their aggregated efforts and there is nothing wrong with pooling their collective effort on a for-hire basis and assigning the copyright for the result to a commercial entity with shareholders. Your pottery analogy is broken because it doesn't reflect how a film is put together. Imagine, rather, a giant sculpture that requires the collective efforts of 100 potters.
hornetblack 13y ago
Specifically they put each movie on for a limited time every 7 years.

by hga 13y ago

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Disney employees are the content creators, no? You may find that point moot, I find it highly pertinent. People create artistic works. Copyright is supposedly - in it's base form - for those people (and the public) and not primarily intended to ensure shareholders get rich.

anigbrowl 13y ago
You don't just stick a bunch of creative people in a room and get a movie, any more than you put 100 people in a field and get a factory. Yes, it's a creative endeavor, but (speaking as someone who works in film)95% of the input consists of grunt work, spread across technical specialties from accounting to schlepping things into and out of trucks. Even the writing, acting, directing involves tons of grunt work. Indeed, the whole skill of film/TV work is to aggregate the work of hundreds or thousands of people so as to make present an illusion of a few people engaging in (mostly) effortless natural behavior. Putting on my screenwriter hat (which is maybe 10% of my activity in this field), I very much want the option of selling my work to a producer for cash money. Money up front pays the bills. I have ownership interests in a few films too, but it isn't worth anything. since most films don't make any money this is sadly unexceptional. It's a brutal market, but also extremely egalitarian.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is here. Take a potter. His visual style, assuming it is distinct, bears copyright protection. Rightly so, then an upstart can't legally come in and reproduce his work and steal away his customers without having put in the work needed to create the design initially. But the copyright in that work doesn't, and shouldn't, bear any sense of protection towards the jobs of those that quarry the clay, or the steel-workers that make the steal used in the potter's tools. An entire network rests on the potters creative work, but the copyright is there to protect only the creative portion. If the potter is producing work without a distinct style then there will be no effective copyright in it's visual appearance and still all the others will get paid if there is demand for the product. So?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. You say the creativity resides with the employees who make the film, but my point is that the creation is only possible through their aggregated efforts and there is nothing wrong with pooling their collective effort on a for-hire basis and assigning the copyright for the result to a commercial entity with shareholders. Your pottery analogy is broken because it doesn't reflect how a film is put together. Imagine, rather, a giant sculpture that requires the collective efforts of 100 potters.

hornetblack 13y ago

Specifically they put each movie on for a limited time every 7 years.