5 ms·

But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, althoug

by seren 12y ago

But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, although I am pretty sure that Walt Disney's lawyers are already carefully preparing their argument for the next few hundred years of protection extension.

Shivetya 12y ago
I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content can be created by the author should discount extending the protection. Now interesting cases do arise where direct descendant or designated authors do keep stories and characters progressing, Dune and Pern come to mind. So where the association is very strong with an active entitle I say let them keep it, where there are degrees of separation, like book examples, then perhaps one generation?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  The Matrix should be in the public domain. Copyright should last 5 years, plus another 5 years if it's made available to the public without DRM.
- mattmanser 12y ago
  Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because they've distorted the meaning of copyright. There's no good reason for someone else's ideas to be protected, it doesn't benefit society at all. Copyright should be 10-15 years, not this ridiculous century. Apart from America as it exports the stuff, so, surprise, surprise, they've bullied the rest of the world into making stupidly long copyrights so that everything created in the last century is languishing in untouchable hell so a few big brands can continue making money off things that should be public domain.
  - philh 12y ago
    > Then you don't understand why copyright was created. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      Disney wouldn't be here today as we know if if that were the case back when they were creating their feature-length cartoons.
    - maratd 12y ago
      You're conflating tangible with the intangible. Land ownership stems from natural law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law Animals are territorial and that's really the end of that. However, the idea of owning an idea ... that's a legal construct and a very recent one at that. The idea of owning an idea would be entirely foreign to someone a thousand years ago. And the idea that you have a moral claim on owning an idea is just patently absurd, for a very simple reason. You have no means of proving one way or another that you were the first person to have that very thought. It is entirely possible someone else had it long before you. What claim to ownership can you have? Because you commercialized the idea first? Most countries are moving to a "first to file" system to simplify bureaucracy, so now your moral claim is contingent not even on your business acumen, but on your ability to quickly fill out a form.
- hackiavelli 12y ago
  I believe existing IP law already covers this. Disney still maintains exclusivity over Mickey as one of their trademarks (and will forever). It's the Steamboat Willie shorts themselves that would be going into the public domain when the copyright expires.
  - yakk0 12y ago
    A good example is the Fleischer Superman cartoons. No one disputes that DC (and Warner Bros.) owns Superman, but these cartoons have all entered the public domain.
- seren 12y ago
  I don't really care either for Mickey Mouse specifically. But somehow, I think it is impoverishing what's is added to global culture, and in the long term is self-defeating. Look at the very bottom of this article, the graph about available books by decade. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25... The Twentieth Century has a big hole in the middle, because copyright holders tend to stop publishing what is not profitable enough, but do not release their rights just in case, something could put the book back at the forefront. In the long run, if Mickey Mouse remains the sole property of Walt Disney, it will disappear with the company, while something entering the public domain has much more chance of being revivified. You just have to look to the Sherlock serie. Again, I don't really care for Mickey Mouse specifically. After all, we can't remember everything and some thing will be forgotten in a century or two. But since the law is the same for everyone, there are plenty of works from the 1940's or 1950's that are languishing unpublished, and could have be made available, especially now with the rise of e-books.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by seren 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago

I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content can be created by the author should discount extending the protection. Now interesting cases do arise where direct descendant or designated authors do keep stories and characters progressing, Dune and Pern come to mind. So where the association is very strong with an active entitle I say let them keep it, where there are degrees of separation, like book examples, then perhaps one generation?

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The Matrix should be in the public domain. Copyright should last 5 years, plus another 5 years if it's made available to the public without DRM.
mattmanser 12y ago
Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because they've distorted the meaning of copyright. There's no good reason for someone else's ideas to be protected, it doesn't benefit society at all. Copyright should be 10-15 years, not this ridiculous century. Apart from America as it exports the stuff, so, surprise, surprise, they've bullied the rest of the world into making stupidly long copyrights so that everything created in the last century is languishing in untouchable hell so a few big brands can continue making money off things that should be public domain.
- philh 12y ago
  > Then you don't understand why copyright was created. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Disney wouldn't be here today as we know if if that were the case back when they were creating their feature-length cartoons.
  - maratd 12y ago
    You're conflating tangible with the intangible. Land ownership stems from natural law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law Animals are territorial and that's really the end of that. However, the idea of owning an idea ... that's a legal construct and a very recent one at that. The idea of owning an idea would be entirely foreign to someone a thousand years ago. And the idea that you have a moral claim on owning an idea is just patently absurd, for a very simple reason. You have no means of proving one way or another that you were the first person to have that very thought. It is entirely possible someone else had it long before you. What claim to ownership can you have? Because you commercialized the idea first? Most countries are moving to a "first to file" system to simplify bureaucracy, so now your moral claim is contingent not even on your business acumen, but on your ability to quickly fill out a form.
hackiavelli 12y ago
I believe existing IP law already covers this. Disney still maintains exclusivity over Mickey as one of their trademarks (and will forever). It's the Steamboat Willie shorts themselves that would be going into the public domain when the copyright expires.
- yakk0 12y ago
  A good example is the Fleischer Superman cartoons. No one disputes that DC (and Warner Bros.) owns Superman, but these cartoons have all entered the public domain.
seren 12y ago
I don't really care either for Mickey Mouse specifically. But somehow, I think it is impoverishing what's is added to global culture, and in the long term is self-defeating. Look at the very bottom of this article, the graph about available books by decade. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25... The Twentieth Century has a big hole in the middle, because copyright holders tend to stop publishing what is not profitable enough, but do not release their rights just in case, something could put the book back at the forefront. In the long run, if Mickey Mouse remains the sole property of Walt Disney, it will disappear with the company, while something entering the public domain has much more chance of being revivified. You just have to look to the Sherlock serie. Again, I don't really care for Mickey Mouse specifically. After all, we can't remember everything and some thing will be forgotten in a century or two. But since the law is the same for everyone, there are plenty of works from the 1940's or 1950's that are languishing unpublished, and could have be made available, especially now with the rise of e-books.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]