5 ms·

They also ripped off Hamlet. People seem less annoyed by that though

morganvachon 12y ago
Well, Hamlet (like all of Shakespeare's works) is not copyrighted. A manga that had been out only a few years before The Lion King would certainly be. But you make an excellent point: There's not really any originality left in the arts. It's all been done before.
- cujo 12y ago
  It wasn't a "few" years. It was ~30 years.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    "Few" relative to Hamlet.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >Well, Hamlet (like all of Shakespeare's works) is not copyrighted I find it interesting that the HN community is usually deeply anti-copyright until they're own works or the works they like are used seemingly without permission. Then we all become copyright nannies and strict copyright lawyers. This is why I think IP reform will never truly work. We're all to hypocritical about it. We want to use Disney's stuff but we don't want to let Disney use anyone else's. If the stuff that someone else owns is more valuable that ours we want it. When someone takes something of value from us, we freak out. That isn't politics, that's just envy and theft. I saw reddit take down a site that was using some redditors clip-art without permission, most likely accidentately. The outrage and DDOS was unbelievable for a place where "free culture" is the norm. It seems like there is no real anti-copyright movement, at least an organized one. Just a disorganized group engaging in hypocritical self-interest under the guise of "political reformer." Shame really, 10+ years ago, it seemed guys like Lessig were making progress and we were just one SCOTUS ruling from change. If anything, we're farther from reform than ever now.
  - scbrg 12y ago
    > I find it interesting that the HN community is usually deeply anti-copyright until they're own works or the works they like are used seemingly without permission. Then we all become copyright nannies and strict copyright lawyers. Generally, I'd say the anti-copyright community gets angry when it is copyright advocates that commit copyright infringement. It doesn't really have to do with whether they like the infringed work - but when the very people who are actively working on maintaining, or even worsening the copyright situation (such as Disney) get away with infringing it leaves a very bitter taste, and is hard to forgive. People get angry when it is OK for Disney to break the law and make millions doing so, while a random kid doing it on a much smaller scale without earning a dime gets fined into oblivion. The hypocrisy and the injustice is worse than the crime itself.
  - Avshalom 12y ago
    It's not that weird. Disney is an 800lb media gorilla. When they rip something off it's punching down. I am a poorish dude in a bedroom when I rip off Disney I'm punching up. Which is why I don't give a shit about Disney ripping of kimba in this case. Tezuka is/was a media giant in Japan and the Lion King didn't really do anything to harm the Kimba IP financially anyway.
  - innguest 12y ago
    The reason for the contradiction between belief and behavior arises from lack of principles. Most people will decide on a per-issue basis how they feel about it, and then rationalize their sentiment. The truth is intellectual property is not real property, and therefore has no legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society. That's the principle, property rights for property. Be it Disney or whomever.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The truth is intellectual property is not real property, and therefore has no legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society. This is true in the sense that intellectual property is a subcategory of intangible personal property which is a subcategory of personal property, which is a different and mutually exclusive subcategory of "property" from real property. But I suspect that you are using "real property" to mean something other than what that term means in discussing categories of property (since otherwise you'd be arguing that all personal property is inconsistent with capitalism, which only makes sense if you've gotten capitalism confused with a particularly extreme form of communism.) But I don't know exactly what you do mean by "real property", and I think you would do well to define what you mean by it (and maybe choose a term that doesn't already have a clear and well-understood meaning in the context of property) and explain why that thing is the only thing with a "legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society". (And then, for bonus points, explain what relevance being the only thing with a "legitimate claim for protection a capitalist society" should even be relevant in any modern mixed economy, all of which have made the conscious choice to deviate in some important ways from pure capitalist notions of property rights.)
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Well, there are only seven stories to tell, or so it's said: Voyage and Return, Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Hero's Quest, Rebirth/Bildungsroman, Comedy, Tragedy.
LeonRobrotsky 12y ago
> People seem less annoyed by that though Probably because Shakespeare was white.
- mathgeek 12y ago
  I'd wager it's because Shakespeare did a fair amount of flattery himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet
digikata 12y ago
A lot of Shakespeare plays have contemporary precursors or are retellings of old stories - IIRC some of Shakespeare's work might be considered 'best of breed' type refinements on common storylines and themes of the time. Ironic to consider the possibility that Shakespeare's work is of such acclaim now, but may have been produced in ways that modern IP law would inhibit or bar.

Well, Hamlet (like all of Shakespeare's works) is not copyrighted. A manga that had been out only a few years before The Lion King would certainly be. But you make an excellent point: There's not really any originality left in the arts. It's all been done before.

cujo 12y ago
It wasn't a "few" years. It was ~30 years.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  "Few" relative to Hamlet.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>Well, Hamlet (like all of Shakespeare's works) is not copyrighted I find it interesting that the HN community is usually deeply anti-copyright until they're own works or the works they like are used seemingly without permission. Then we all become copyright nannies and strict copyright lawyers. This is why I think IP reform will never truly work. We're all to hypocritical about it. We want to use Disney's stuff but we don't want to let Disney use anyone else's. If the stuff that someone else owns is more valuable that ours we want it. When someone takes something of value from us, we freak out. That isn't politics, that's just envy and theft. I saw reddit take down a site that was using some redditors clip-art without permission, most likely accidentately. The outrage and DDOS was unbelievable for a place where "free culture" is the norm. It seems like there is no real anti-copyright movement, at least an organized one. Just a disorganized group engaging in hypocritical self-interest under the guise of "political reformer." Shame really, 10+ years ago, it seemed guys like Lessig were making progress and we were just one SCOTUS ruling from change. If anything, we're farther from reform than ever now.
- scbrg 12y ago
  > I find it interesting that the HN community is usually deeply anti-copyright until they're own works or the works they like are used seemingly without permission. Then we all become copyright nannies and strict copyright lawyers. Generally, I'd say the anti-copyright community gets angry when it is copyright advocates that commit copyright infringement. It doesn't really have to do with whether they like the infringed work - but when the very people who are actively working on maintaining, or even worsening the copyright situation (such as Disney) get away with infringing it leaves a very bitter taste, and is hard to forgive. People get angry when it is OK for Disney to break the law and make millions doing so, while a random kid doing it on a much smaller scale without earning a dime gets fined into oblivion. The hypocrisy and the injustice is worse than the crime itself.
- Avshalom 12y ago
  It's not that weird. Disney is an 800lb media gorilla. When they rip something off it's punching down. I am a poorish dude in a bedroom when I rip off Disney I'm punching up. Which is why I don't give a shit about Disney ripping of kimba in this case. Tezuka is/was a media giant in Japan and the Lion King didn't really do anything to harm the Kimba IP financially anyway.
- innguest 12y ago
  The reason for the contradiction between belief and behavior arises from lack of principles. Most people will decide on a per-issue basis how they feel about it, and then rationalize their sentiment. The truth is intellectual property is not real property, and therefore has no legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society. That's the principle, property rights for property. Be it Disney or whomever.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The truth is intellectual property is not real property, and therefore has no legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society. This is true in the sense that intellectual property is a subcategory of intangible personal property which is a subcategory of personal property, which is a different and mutually exclusive subcategory of "property" from real property. But I suspect that you are using "real property" to mean something other than what that term means in discussing categories of property (since otherwise you'd be arguing that all personal property is inconsistent with capitalism, which only makes sense if you've gotten capitalism confused with a particularly extreme form of communism.) But I don't know exactly what you do mean by "real property", and I think you would do well to define what you mean by it (and maybe choose a term that doesn't already have a clear and well-understood meaning in the context of property) and explain why that thing is the only thing with a "legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society". (And then, for bonus points, explain what relevance being the only thing with a "legitimate claim for protection a capitalist society" should even be relevant in any modern mixed economy, all of which have made the conscious choice to deviate in some important ways from pure capitalist notions of property rights.)
madaxe_again 12y ago
Well, there are only seven stories to tell, or so it's said: Voyage and Return, Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Hero's Quest, Rebirth/Bildungsroman, Comedy, Tragedy.

LeonRobrotsky 12y ago

> People seem less annoyed by that though Probably because Shakespeare was white.

mathgeek 12y ago
I'd wager it's because Shakespeare did a fair amount of flattery himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet

digikata 12y ago

A lot of Shakespeare plays have contemporary precursors or are retellings of old stories - IIRC some of Shakespeare's work might be considered 'best of breed' type refinements on common storylines and themes of the time. Ironic to consider the possibility that Shakespeare's work is of such acclaim now, but may have been produced in ways that modern IP law would inhibit or bar.