Waiting 100+ Years For Version 2.0

from the extended-copyrights-make-creativity-a-zero-sum-game dept

Fri, May 27th 2011 7:39pm — Tim Cushing

Jeffrey A. Tucker (of the Mises Institute) recently had the pleasure of viewing Tangled, Disney's 2010 remake of the Rapunzel story. He gives a brief rundown of the improvements, including:

"[T]he story mercifully leaves out some very strange aspects of the original Brothers Grimm, including the wildly implausible idea that a husband would give up child-rearing rights to his wife's child in exchange for free access to the neighbor's lettuce patch."

(It's amazing how a little hindsight makes free access to a lettuce patch seem less valuable than a human child.)

Of course, Disney (a.k.a. Kaptain Kopyright) has often raided the Brothers Grimm for inspiration, thanks to their stories being in the public domain, something Disney's own work will likely never be subject to. And while there's a lot to be said in regards to Disney's hypocritical plundering of the past, Tucker points out just exactly how much copyright stifles creativity:

"Sometimes 2.0 is just much better than 1.0, and here we see the big problem with intellectual-property protection. It freezes the first release as the only release for up to several generations. Improving and adapting are made against the law. This is not a problem if you use a story that is old enough. But why should society have to wait 100 years to get a better version of the original? Why should we have laws that artificially slow the pace of progress?"

That question is directed at you, copyright maximalists. Why should we have to wait more than a lifetime to improve or adapt an idea? It can't just be the money, because most ideas don't generate a lifetime of income. Is it the fear that someone might improve on your idea? Is that the main concern? That the world will move on, forgetting the originator and embracing the "remixer"? Or is it simply a short-sighted and mercenary view that has self-perpetuated into the endless copyright extensions of today?

It's often argued that extensive copyright protection "fosters creativity," but this "creativity" is often narrowly defined and bound to one person (and their heirs) for 100+ years. Tying down an idea for more than a century fosters nothing more than resentment on both sides of the issue. The creators tend to feel that there is something sacred about an original idea, despite the fact there is no such thing as "original". Those on the outside who wish to build on existing ideas are locked out and no matter how brilliant their take is, it will never see the light of day.

It's as if certain artists feel that their ideas should exist on an unwavering straight line that runs parallel to their lifetime. While copyright protection theoretically "incentivizes" creativity, in practice it has become nothing more than a legislatively-backed, wholly undeserved pension plan that does nothing more than lock everyone else out of the creative process.

(Quick hat tip to JPM, who shot this post in my direction via evil social behemoth, Facebook.)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: culture, derivative works, remix

280 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2011 @ 7:51pm

Why should we have to wait more than a lifetime to improve or adapt an idea?

uh, because you don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqOU7r4hdmw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 2:54am
  
  Re:
  Not bad, and well themed video, though the original Men at Work version is still better to me. Probably cause I'm old and set in my ways.. That and having heard the original every hr on the radio here in Oz when it came out, and singing it loud at their concerts :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- selfdistributedmusician (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 7:03am
  
  Re:
  +1 for use of Men At Work resulting in copyright irony, AC
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_%28song%29#Copyright_lawsuit
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  There is a specific compulsory license for covering a piece of music. However, AFAIK there is no such right for any other type of copyrighted material. So the question still applies to movies, books, plays, software, poetry, and anything else copyrighted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2011 @ 7:55pm

I hate our anti-copy laws. I hate them with a passion. and our government is doing absolutely nothing to correct them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 27 May 2011 @ 7:56pm

Bigger question
Why does Disney always get copyrights on things that they've taken from others? Most of the content they've ever made was taken from others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2011 @ 7:58pm
  
  Re: Bigger question
  It's not stealing when big corporations do it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 27 May 2011 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re: Bigger question
  Well, they don't, really. They get the copyright in the script and the songs and the overall presentation. They just like to THINK they get the copyright over everything.
  
  Which reminds me, I do believe that, under Australian law, the Disney movies "Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs", "Pinocchio" and "Fantasia" are now in the public domain in Australia, and "Dumbo" will be at the end of the year. I believe (though I'm not certain) that this is also the case for most of Europe and Canada.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re: Bigger question
    You would be correct, Its one of the reasons why they just recently released the original Fantasia on BlueRay here.. had to get heaps of money and adds to the subliminal message that they "own" it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 3:06am
    
    Re: Re: Bigger question
    Nope. Not for another ten years, minimum in the EU.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - charliebrown (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 3:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bigger question
      Are you sure? It's been 71 years for "Pinocchio" and "Fantasia" and 74 years for "Snow White"....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger question
        You forgot the "life+" part of that equation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger question
        The "life" part doesn't apply to works created by corporations in many jurisdictions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bigger question
        IT does in the UK. Unfortunately, the 'Life' part can be transferred.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2011 @ 9:05pm

Finally someone who makes that cartoon lady look funny. Don't give up your day job Tim, because damn you suck at comedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  I see your mistake... you seem to have confused "comedy" with "being a huge gaping asshole" - something you excel at.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alias (profile), 27 May 2011 @ 9:06pm

>>That question is directed at you, copyright maximalists. Why should we have to wait more than a lifetime to improve or adapt an idea?

Copyright maximalists?

Hello?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 27 May 2011 @ 9:19pm
  
  Re:
  They've run off because they know that no matter what they say, we won't agree with them!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2011 @ 9:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, one of them commented above and of course since he has no argument, resorted to typical mindless insults.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 12:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'll assume you weren't referring to me, as all I did was post an example of how foolish Tim's statement was.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 12:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Referring to 9:05 PM's red snowflake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2011 @ 9:59pm
  
  Re:
  Konichiwa!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  I am not a "copyright maximalist," but this question is based on an invalid assumption.
  
  You shouldn't have to wait more than a lifetime to improve or adapt an idea, and you *don't* have to wait more than a lifetime to improve or adapt an idea.
  
  First, "ideas" are not covered by copyright.
  
  But leaving that aside, all you need is permission in order to improve or adapt protected expression.
  
  Sometimes that permission is very hard to get, sometimes that is easy to get. In most cases, it comes down to an investment of your expected profits in obtaining the required permission to create the adaptation.
  
  That is a hurdle, but it is rarely an insurmountable hurdle.
  
  So, a better question, more grounded in reality, is why should an adapter have to pay to make an adaptation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transbot9, 27 May 2011 @ 10:18pm

Trademark law is probably just as (if not more) dangerous of a component, here - if I remember right, long as they keep using it, they don't lose it.

Then again, with every new format Disney's lawyers would probably claim a new copyright on the same material - even if the adjustments are minor ("Digital Restoration," anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 27 May 2011 @ 11:24pm
  
  Re:
  I remember a conversation that was all about Disney and their magical vault. Seriously, do they even need it anymore? If I want, I could probably download all of the Disney movies in a manner of minutes. Disney doesn't have a streaming service, they don't replay older movies, and they've let a lot of their movies go to waste without updating them to a new audience. Now that we're in the digital era, I have to wonder if it's time to break Disney of their habit of beating the internet with the banhammer of ICE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  Trademark law is probably just as (if not more) dangerous of a component, here - if I remember right, long as they keep using it, they don't lose it.
  
  If trademark law were kept to its original purpose - a consumer protection law - it would be fine. The only problem is people keep trying (sometimes successfully) to expand it to protect the trademark holder, which was not the original intent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2011 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think so.
  
  Trademark law is abused (like every law) but it's intent is pretty clear, a good idea and (arguably), more important than copyright or patents.
  
  It's essentially to prevent "business identity theft".
  
  Yes, it's being allowed way too broadly.
  
  The problem is not with the laws, or intent of the laws. The problem is with abuse. Like anything good, it's good in moderation.
  
  Copyright, Patent, Trademark all have a place in a complex society.
  
  Maybe we need to send congress to "rehab"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 3:01am

To be fair, it's not that people CAN'T improve on the original until it falls out of copyright -- it's that they need to get permission from the copyright owner. It's not an insurmountable obstacle for the determined with money and/or negotiation skills, but yes, it puts up a huge roadblock for the artist with talent but no resources. And that does suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:09am
  
  Re:
  Another problem is that even if you did get "permission", you'd still be restricted to making it in whatever way the company the holds the copyright allows. So (legal) alternate takes on the subject matter are still extremly limited until the expiration of the monopoly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope, you are free to cover a song and interpret it any way you wish.
    
    I have no idea where you people get such blatant misinformation.
    
    oh wait, yes I do...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Nope, you are free to cover a song and interpret it any way you wish."
      
      Having to pay money to do so isn't free, and unless it falls under fair use then you often must get permission first, which is different than saying you are free to do anything. Free to do something means never need permission under any circumstances and it means you don't have to pay anything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Free to do something means you never need permission under any circumstances and it means you never have to pay anything. *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do not have to get permission. And the owner of the song has no say whatsoever in how you choose to interpret the song.
        
        Stop lying about this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You do not have to get permission."
        
        You don't always have to get permission, I said if it falls under fair use you don't have to. But that's different than saying one is free to do anything.
        
        "And the owner of the song has no say whatsoever in how you choose to interpret the song."
        
        Again, I mentioned fair use, but that still doesn't make one free to do anything. It makes one able to do things but there are limits, which is different than saying one is free to do anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's all fine and good for cover songs, but what about remix artists? If you want to release a remix, you need permission from the copyright holder (and probably a royalty agreement). Sometimes this will simply be a "yes" or "no" situation - but the copyright holder can absolutely impose conditions on you, or make their decision based on whether or not they liked your version, if that's what they want to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what about remix artists?
        
        The permission for that is because remix artists want to CLAIM IT AS THEIR OWN. The writing credit. They want that exclusively. Thus, keeping all the glory (and money).
        
        Except it *isn't* all their own, is it?
        
        Thankfully, the law says they have to work out an agreement with the original writer, if the sample is over a certain length.
        
        Short samples fall under fair use and are used *all the time*.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you are WAY out of date. Short samples haven't been fair use since 1991 and Grand Upright v. Warner Bros
        
        So yeah, 12 years ago you were right. Might want to do some catching up before throwing a temper tantrum in a debate like this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, even in the world of covers, things change if what you are doing becomes a derivative work... If you are doing a cover of a song, as written in full, then the artist can't deny you a mechanical license. But say you wanted to use only PART of a song in a new song, or build some sort of medley with your original songs, or make substantial original additions of your own - then suddenly you don't qualify for a mechanical license anymore, and the copyright holder can deny you. So the idea that you are free to interpret it HOWEVER you want is not really true - there are major boundaries on how far you can go, and boundaries don't really have any place in art and music.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is incorrect. And I know it first hand.
        
        You can take that song, use only a few parts and add whatever new parts you like. Do whatever you want.
        
        You just can't claim it as yours and no one else's. And why should you?
        
        If that protection wasn't there, people would just take choruses from Beatles songs, slap some new lyrics over it, write a new verse and go make money on a song where they didn't even write the hook or best part.
        
        The reason copyright is blatantly necessary should be obvious to anyone that has bothered to look at it from the creator's viewpoint.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By my understanding, in between a direct cover and a fully transformative work there is the gulf of derivative works, where the copyright holder has the sole right.
        
        You could be right, but given that you still think samples are protected by fair use, I'm not very convinced that you know what you are talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I knew that long samples required permission; it was this I was not aware of:
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_Music_Inc._v._Dimension_Films
        
        That's 2005. anyway, mea culpa. Sampling other peoples recordings isn't my thing so I don't exactly keep with up that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right, it was 2005 when the hammer really came down. Unfortunately you are also completely wrong about derivative works in cover situations.
        
        http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/understanding+derivative+works
        
        You-a culpa x2.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First, that still doesn't make it "free."
        
        Second, you might want to look into what the Copyright Act actually says regarding the "no say whatsoever in how you choose to interpret the song."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I have no idea where you people get such blatant misinformation."
      
      You accuse us of expressing misinformation yet here you are providing others with misinformation. The irony.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not giving out any misinformation.
        
        You do not need to "get permission" for anything.
        
        Quit lying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, you don't need to get permission unless you want to avoid facing some potentially ridiculous fines.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        NO. YOU FUCKING STUPID FUCKING FREETARD.
        
        THERE ARE NO FINES AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GET PERMISSION.
        
        GET IT?
        
        HERE, I'LL MAKE IT CLEARER FOR YOU:
        
        YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GET PERMISSION.
        
        STOP LYING, YOU IGNORANT FUCKING PUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, yell louder and your position is suddenly correct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rich, 28 May 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, what a cogent argument. I'm not sure what convinces me more, the capital letters or the ironclad reasoning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, calm down. You are right that you don't need permission for a standard cover song. But as I point out above, there is a tonne of other stuff you DO need permission for - remixes and derivative works being the big ones. Care to address that?
        
        So please, quit acting like this is so clear-cut. As a general rule, if you think any aspect of copyright law is "simple" and "easy", then you are the ignorant fucking pud who has no clue how this stuff works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Flameouts....so delicious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        darryl, 28 May 2011 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        moron..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some suggestions:
        
        1. Calm down
        
        2. If you're solely going to talk about exceptions to the general copyright rule (e.g., compulsory mechanical royalties/licensing for musical compositions), you might want to clarify that's what you're doing. For most (all?) other works, you need permission to avoid liability.
        
        3. If you're going to get all high and mighty about "misinformation," you should check your Ps and Qs regarding what you say. In the U.S., compulsory licensing for musical compositions does not allow the licensee to "change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you know that art is more than just songs? What about pictures? Am I free to cover pictures? No? I can't just redraw a Superman comic with my own interpretation and say it's all good.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds like a trademark issue. Why are you bringing that up?
        
        And have you ever thought about creating something original? What a concept.
        
        This is why copyright and trademark exist.
        
        If they didn't, unoriginal people would sit on the same playing field as original, creative types, by simply taking their innovations and copying them. People would just recycle the *exact* same stuff over and over; there would be less *original* creation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If they didn't, unoriginal people would sit on the same playing field as original, creative types, by simply taking their innovations and copying them. People would just recycle the *exact* same stuff over and over; there would be less *original* creation."
        
        Unsubstantiated fear mongering.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're woefully ignorant of the arts and how they work. You should take an art history class sometime; you might learn a thing or two.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is why copyright and trademark exist.
        
        If they didn't, unoriginal people would sit on the same playing field as original, creative types, by simply taking their innovations and copying them.
        
        You mean like Disney does?
        
        Oops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're also free to interpret older works and monetize them with new ideas that draw in customers and solidify your brand.
        
        Except you have no idea how to do such a thing.
        
        Lack of talent really is a deep creek to cross, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You're also free to interpret older works and monetize them with new ideas that draw in customers and solidify your brand."
        
        In most (or at least many( cases, you are not free to do with without permission of the copyright owner in the older work. That is the point of the article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Misinformation? Copyright isn't at all limied to songs, and you can't just do a reimagining of say, disney works in any way you please until the copyright expires. This is a fact.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Nope. You can cover any song you wish, as long as you give the songwriter their share of the proceeds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Reading comprehension problem much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Reading comprehension problem much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    "as long as you give the songwriter their share of the proceeds."
    
    As long as you get permission from the copy protection holder (often the labels, not the songwriter), assuming they give permission. and even if they do, the protection holder is allowed to demand whatever amount of money they wish.
    
    and it's not really their share of the proceeds, they are rightfully entitled to $0, these laws give copy protection holders more than what they are entitled to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You do not need any permission. Stop lying about this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not a lie.
        
        "Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work."
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
        
        Copy protection laws put restrictions on derivative works. Those restrictions mean that you are not free to do anything, for one to be free to do anything would mean that no restrictions exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not covering a song, you ignorant fucking freetard.
        
        Did your mom drop you on your head as a child? A lot?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It does cover songs. It covers anything that falls under copy protection laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No it doesn't.
        
        You're just trolling now.
        
        No one could be this dumb.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The general word "work" includes songs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The bitchy AC with anger problems is partially right: there is a mechanical license that allows you to record cover songs without permission, simply by paying generic royalties. However it limits you to covers - not any sort of derivative work or anything else. For example, you couldn't record a cover with new lyrics (unless, like Weird Al, the lyrics were a parody of the original, giving you the parody fair use defence - and he still gets permission every time anyway) and you couldn't record a cover with your own bridge that you added or an extra verse that you wrote.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good gravy. Marcus, this is WRONG. Please stop.
        
        I know this subject first hand. It's one of the funnest things to do, actually; a blast. You just have to still credit the original writer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, you are so out of date on this shit there is no reason to listen to you. You think samples are fair use - that pretty much says it all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you are VERY wrong about derivative works. Sorry.
        
        http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/understanding+derivative+works
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus- you can cover a song any way you wish as long as you credit the original writer.
        
        You probably can't put words in the original songwriter's mouth, by writing substantially different lyrics; but that is a different subject, because when discussing changing a song, I am referring to the melody and music.
        
        Weird Al goes and works out a deal with the original writers because he wants *a cut* too; he wants part of the writing credit. You need permission for that, obviously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh... well, you're wrong, but this is like talking to a brick wall. You cant assert that you can do it "whatever way you wish" when there are clearly lots of restrictions. The moment it becomes a derivative work the copyright holder has the exclusive right to grant or deny you permission. And yes, that CAN happen with just changes to the melody and music - in fact musical arrangements are one of the things specifically listed as a derivative work in 17 USC 101.
        
        Also you keep bringing up writing credits - but copyright law has very little to do with attribution. I think you have been severely misinformed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (actually the musical arrangement part mostly refers to a musical version of a non-musical work - just another one of the things copyright law blocks - however the definition of derivatives also includes "a work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications". The threshhold for how much modification is necessary to constitute a derivative is only defined through case law, and thus by releasing any modified cover you are opening yourself up to potential lawsuits)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, actually, Weird Al works out a deal with the original writers and artists because he wants to show them respect as fellow musicians. Parody is protect fair use, and thus requires no permission, but sometimes it is best to stay on good terms with other artists.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/10431413988/weird-al-denied-permission-to-parody-lady- gaga-releases-new-song-free-anyway.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. You obviously don't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sleepy, 28 May 2011 @ 4:16am

Is Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs disney film in public domain in uk?
is this correct:
Duration of copyright
The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;
Films

70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies.
If the work is of unknown authorship: 70 years from end of the calendar year of creation, or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.

so, if Snow white was released in 1937 then it went in to the public domain in the UK in 2007? So we can download this from wherever we like, reedit, mess about with etc as much as we like - in the UK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- selfdistributedmusician (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 5:26am
  
  Re: Is Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs disney film in public domain in uk?
  "70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies."
  
  One of the principle directors of SW7D died in 1995, so no, don't do it! 2065 is the earliest you may be able to recombobulate this timeless classic� without fear of infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:10am
    
    Re: Re: Is Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs disney film in public domain in uk?
    but is that then overruled by: 'or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Is Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs disney film in public domain in uk?
      No - that only applies for unknown authorship.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Is Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs disney film in public domain in uk?
      No - that only applies for unknown authorship.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anothermike, 31 May 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re: Is Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs disney film in public domain in uk?
  Was the 1988 law made retroactive for all existing copyrights? If not, then you have to go by the law as written in 1937.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeni (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 5:22am

Copying isn't stealing
What baffles me most about this whole copyright issue is the simple fact that you can never, ever "steal" the originality of any author be it movies, poetry, music, what have you. You just can't.

You can't "steal" the words they put together to create their song, movie, poem, etc.

You can't "steal" the arrangement of the music notes a musician used to create his/her music.

Who can ever "steal" Romeo and Julie from Shakespeare? (I just recently amused myself with a simple, light hearted movie called "Gnomeo and Juliet" - it was cute, but it wasn't Shakespeare... )

Who can "steal" Symphony No. 5 from Beethoven?

It can't be done. They "own" it - forever, infinitely.

Making a "COPY" of it for your entertainment does not make a person a thief no more than "rearranging" it does - as hypocritical Disney proves right here.

No matter how hard the tyrants try, they'll never be able to "ban" or outlaw creativity because it's part of human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:33am

I wonder what would have happened to the christian society if someone would have placed a copyright on the bible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- darryl, 28 May 2011 @ 11:36pm
  
  Re: learn history, find out about Bible 'Copyright'
  in certain times in history, the Bible was not allowed to be printed (at all), and NEVER in english, only latin.
  
  You would be killed if you were found with a copy of it, you would be killed if you tried to show it to anyone else.
  
  it was illegal to copy it, it was illegal to translate it.
  
  It was illegal to own it.
  
  So if you wonder what would have happened to the christian society if 'someone' placed a copyright on the bible.
  
  Then WONDER NO MORE, read history and find out !!!!
  
  Because IT DID HAPPEN !!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 5:02am
    
    Re: Re: learn history, find out about Bible 'Copyright'
    Those "laws" were made by tyrannical humans, not by the original authors of the Bible. Those tyrants had no rights to the Bible to do that, which is why those "laws" didn't work out too well.
    
    The Bible was meant to be shared - OMG DOES IT ENCOURAGE STEALING? Of course not, because you can never alter who the original creators are, no more than you can alter God Himself whether you believe or don't believe, share the word or don't share the word.
    
    Which I do, by the way, which means I don't believe in stealing but I sure as shootin' believe in sharing.
    
    If I see a hungry homeless man sitting outside a restaurant and I go in, order my meal, set aside half my sandwich in a napkin, eat my fill, go outside and give that other half to the hungry homeless man. Did I just embark upon an act of kindness? Or have I just "stolen" from the restaurant because the homeless man didn't pay for that part of the sandwich? Of course not, I paid for it. I just SHARED it.
    
    Or do you think the homeless man should go in and pay for "his share"? Isn't that a double-do? What if I shared it with 3 homeless people? Should the restaurant then get paid 4 times - for one meal? They didn't need more ingredients, more supplies, more electricity, more chef's etc., to "create" anything new.
    
    Now some of you may think that's a ridiculous analogy but before you go off half cocked, give it some thought because that's the road we're heading on with all this nonsense of "sharing is stealing". Sharing is part and parcel of a good human beings human nature.
    
    And what would a cold hearted, greedy person do? They'd look at the homeless man and think "BUM! Wish those vagrants wouldn't exist!" Or something along those lines...like some of you "haters" here act.
    
    End rant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Togashi (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: learn history, find out about Bible 'Copyright'
      As much as I agree that sharing is great and the rhetoric is getting way out of hand, I have to point out that in your analogy, you paid the restaurant for one sandwich. Your "share" of the sandwich was only half of the sandwich, and the homeless gentleman's "share" of the sandwich was the other half, so the restaurant was paid for all the consumption of the sandwich. Big Content would be fine with it if that was how sharing worked with their works.
      
      But the way they want you to see it is that sharing a copy of a song/book/movie, your "share" is still the whole work; your ability to consume it is not hindered in any way. However, your friend also has a "share" of the whole work. As far as they are concerned, there are now two "shares" of the work out there when they were only paid for one of them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: learn history, find out about Bible 'Copyright'
        Right - that's my point! And I see your point completely.
        
        But by doing what they're doing, they are claiming that every digital file of every song that MAY be shared should be paid for somehow, no matter that it doesn't cost the artist one extra red cent, nor even an ounce of effort... or that us little peons out here shouldn't be able to do what human nature inclines us to often do - share what we have with others. That's the point I'm trying to make.
        
        And, human nature being what it is, people are always going to want to purchase those hard copies of things they really enjoy, too. Artists make money in so many, many ways that I cannot help but believe this whole, invasive attack on such a simple and otherwise innocent act called sharing is morally wrong and totally illogical.
        
        The more they continue their power grab, the more they push people to do the very thing they don't care for.
        
        No one should care any more about my sharing a digital file than they do if I share a sandwich. Both acts are sharing. Sharing is not criminal. Sharing is not a bad thing.
        
        And regarding that restaurant; gospel truth, my niece told a waitress recently she would share my soda with me, since neither of us wanted much. She was flat out told by the waitress, "NO SHARING IS ALLOWED".
        
        But the restaurant would have been paid for that 1 soda whether her and I shared it or I drank the whole dang thing by myself, as you agreed, so you see, it's happening already. The ramifications of this insanity...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: learn history, find out about Bible 'Copyright'
      Pretty stupid analogy unless you were making perfect digital (and edible) copies of that sandwich and giving them away for free right in front of the restaurant. What do you think would happen to that restauranteur? How does he compete? You're not "stealing" sandwiches, just making no-cost perfect copies and distributing them to anyone who like one for free instead of paying for it.
      
      Yeah, you're right. You're just being a good human being... or a freeloading scumbag, as the case may be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: learn history, find out about Bible 'Copyright'
        You're just being a good human being... or a freeloading scumbag, as the case may be.
        
        So you're saying if someone invents something that would let us make unlimited amounts of food at no cost, that we shouldn't buy food, copy it, and give it away? I think it would be unethical not to do that. On what basis do you condemn it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buck Lateral, 28 May 2011 @ 6:33am

From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
"That question is directed at you, copyright maximalists. Why should we have to wait more than a lifetime to improve or adapt an IDEA? "

As you know well Masnick, ideas cannot be copyrighted. nonetheless you suggest that they are, distorting the law for the purpose of bolstering your position. Again, this is why you are regarded as a figure of fun in policy circles. There is plenty of legitimate debate to be had within the legal boundaries of copyright law without you inventing things designed to whip up more hysteria.

From the US Copyright Office faqs:

"How do I protect my idea?

Copyright does not protect IDEAS, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 7:38am
  
  Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
  So you think you can make a movie that reinterprets one of Disney's films without a copyright suit being filed and won by Disney?
  
  I am well aware of the limits of the law as it is written, but copyright is enforced beyond just that in practice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Not-worth-a-rebuttal-Department
  "As you know well Masnick--"
  
  Your first problem in the "You can't read" department. Check who the author is, genius.
  
  Second, why not look and study what all the lawsuits about business patents, infringements, DMCA takedowns, etc are all about?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buck Lateral, 28 May 2011 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Not-worth-a-rebuttal-Department
    Sorry Jay, it was a bit early and the tone and style had Masnick written all over it. I attributed to the puppeteer instead of the puppet, my bad. BTW, you may have noticed I caught my mistake almost immediately but unlike on Ars Technica, I don't see a way to edit posts for errors like this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 9:56am
      
      Re: Re: Not-worth-a-rebuttal-Department
      You can always tell just by the style if you pay attention. For this post, you can tell as early as "Kaptain Kopyright". Mike would not use that term. Usually you can tell a Cushing post from a Masnick one in the first sentence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
  No, Patents fill that gap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
  As you know well Masnick, ideas cannot be copyrighted. nonetheless you suggest that they are, distorting the law for the purpose of bolstering your position. Again, this is why you are regarded as a figure of fun in policy circles
  
  1. Not written by me.
  
  2. WTF is a "policy circle" and why do I care about them?
  
  However, now I understand why you refused -- three separate times -- to answer my simple question yesterday on what you do for a living. You're a "policy" guy, and you think that the sun, moon and stars revolve around you. Trust me, I don't care what "policy" people think of me, because "policy" people are to citizens of the world what the RIAA is to musicians. They're obsolete gatekeepers who still falsely think they rule the world.
  
  I didn't even know there was such a job as a "policy" person until a few years ago, and trust me, what they think of me is the least of my concerns.
  
  Though, the fact that you spend so much time here shows that you know damn well that plenty of policy people don't think I'm a joke. I've had to turn down more requests to go to DC and talk to "policy people" in the past six months than in the previous 10 years. The only reason you're here is because you know that, despite my trying to *avoid* policy people, some are actually paying attention. And it scares the people who pay your bills.
  
  Speaking of which, this also explains your complaints about making money off the work of others. I mean, honestly, is there anyone that describes better than policy people? You don't create anything. You suck the system dry by living off the fruits of others. And you're so embarrassed by it that you now claim to hate anyone who profits off the work of others. So transparent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 1:46pm
    
    Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
    I think the phrase is "Home Run!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 29 May 2011 @ 12:22am
    
    Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
    However, now I understand why you refused -- three separate times -- to answer my simple question yesterday on what you do for a living.
    
    What the F*&^ !!!!, what the hell right do you think you have demanding (3 separate times ----) what someone does for a living ??
    
    Mike what does what a person does for a living have to do with the comments he makes or the statements he makes ?
    
    Does everyone else notice how Mike, when confronted with an argument that he has not counter for will immediately resort to personal attacks.
    
    And specificially avoid the initial question !!..
    
    We all know why, but does Mike ?
    
    Mike what do you do for a living ? (1)
    Mike what do you do for a living ? (2)
    Mike what do you do for a living ? (3)
    
    'oh you do that for a living, therefore you can have no knowledge of any other subject except that is related to what you 'do for a living '.
    
    Mike how DO YOU actually make a living ?
    
    Off google add revinue ?
    
    Oh I know what you do MIKE !!!!
    
    You suck the system dry by living off the fruits of others. And you're so embarrassed by it that you now claim to hate anyone who profits off the work of others. So transparent.
    
    Mike, that description sounds EXACTLY what you do and have done for a long time.. and yes, it is transparent..
    
    I would tell you what I do for a 'living' but you would find it a little over your head, not that it matters what people 'do for a living' or that for some reason what someone does for a living determines their knowledge or intelligence or reasoning skills.
    
    By asking him what he does for a living you are trying to place a bias on his statements.
    
    As you saying that what YOU do for a living is free from bias on this or any other subject ?
    
    Are you saying you are bias free !!!! really ???
    
    Is that a part of your SOP, if you cannot think of a reasonable counter argument for a statement, ALWAYS revert to ad hominem attacks.
    
    or is it you are simply elitist ? when are you goign to start to ask what color skin they have, or what country they are from, or if they are male or female, or young or old? (you allready do that).
    
    Since when what you do for a living determines if you are right or wrong, smart or stupid, black or white or yellow, male or female, young or old ?
    
    at least your racest and elitest and sexist tendencies are being displayed now Mike.
    
    but that certainly does not make you 'better' than anyone else, but it shows us that is how you consider yourself.
    
    Or you might want to explain to us, how you do NOT suck the system dry and live off the work of others..
    
    But you wont do that, you will just launch another personal attack.
    
    After all its easier to attack the person, than it is to address the issues.
    
    MIKE.....You're a "policy" guy, and you think that the sun, moon and stars revolve around you. Trust me
    
    Though, the fact that you spend so much time here shows that you know damn well that plenty of policy people don't think I'm a joke
    
    Ive been here awile too, and I KNOW that MANY (most) policy people KNOW YOU ARE A JOKE.... a bad joke, that is not at all funny...
    
    You don't create anything. You suck the system dry by living off the fruits of others.
    
    Wow, that sounds like a very accurate description of your 'living' Mike.. tell us all how that statement does not also directly apply to you Mike ?
    
    (or are you going to tell us you 'create' things,,, LOL)..
    
    I've had to turn down more requests to go to DC and talk to "policy people" in the past six months than in the previous 10 years
    
    HAHAHAHA, ok, you NO ONE asked you for 10 years to go to DC, and ONCE six months ago, ONE PERSON asked you to go to DC.
    
    WOW, Mike that convinced me !!!! you are a superhero.. hahah.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 12:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
      You know dude, there are modern syphilis treatments that would allow you to live a totally normal life...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 12:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        I think he might be communicating some sort of Steganographic message. I haven't been able to decipher it yet. Perhaps it's importance is the subject of national security. Maybe the government should hire some cryptographers to try and decipher it, it could be something serious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 12:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        Perhaps he's covered in invisible ink. We should try peeing on him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 5:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
      WHOA! Goodness Mike, you're better than I realized! When you can strike a nerve that elicits that kind of reaction, you're really making an impact! Go, Mike, GO! ;)
      
      "at least your racest and elitest and sexist tendencies are being displayed now Mike."
      
      @darryl - that is really close to defamation. Defamation is against the law.
      
      Now, I COULD do what loonies always do; pick on spelling 'cuz you see, it's not "racest" it's "racist", but I guess I won't bother to "go there". Darryl is upset enough ... deep breathes, Darryl...don't want you to have an apoplexy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        Don't start trying to correct darryl's spelling and grammar. You won't have time for anything else .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        "at least your racest and elitest and sexist tendencies are being displayed now Mike."
        
        "@darryl - that is really close to defamation. Defamation is against the law."
        
        Adding lawyer to the list of things you're not. Why don't you go sell Girl Scout cookies or something?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        "Why don't you go sell Girl Scout cookies or something?"
        
        I'm too old.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        PS. I didn't know I had to be a lawyer to know something is illegal. I that were the case, everyone without a law degree can commit crimes and just claim "Duh, I didn't know, I'm no lawyer". Poof! Magic innocence of all wrong doing ...
        
        Think, anonymous coward, THINK before you speak. My 3rd grade teacher taught me that a LONG time ago and I understood even at that young age! Imagine that!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 7:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
      Holy smokes.
      
      I think I just witnessed someone having an aneurism via text comment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
    Speaking of which, this also explains your complaints about making money off the work of others. I mean, honestly, is there anyone that describes better than policy people? You don't create anything. You suck the system dry by living off the fruits of others. And you're so embarrassed by it that you now claim to hate anyone who profits off the work of others. So transparent.
    
    Ouch. Fascinating that he didn't respond to this one, eh?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buck Lateral, 30 May 2011 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
    Thanks for pointing out the mistaken attribution of authorship I corrected hours earlier. Perhaps the same scrutiny should be afforded lists of Senators no longer in office.
    
    What I do for a living is irrelevant, and you only seek to find out so you can weave that into an angle to bolster your argument.
    
    The reason I spend any time here is that I get sick and tired of the hysterics that you and all of the other doomdayers whip up over a pretty simple, straight-forward bill that addresses foreign websites who profit from infringing on the copyrighted work of others. The opponents of the bill meeting with legislators on the issue don't cite the writings of Mike Masnick in crafting their arguments. The proponents do offer up snippets of your articles and comments to show that the opposition is largely a bunch of raving paranoiacs and conspiracy theorists.
    
    So I get you don't like the way the system works. Tough shit. Keep up the hysterical diatribe if that's what makes you feel good. It won't make any difference at all. But it does provide a great case for why arguments against the bill should be dismissed as rantings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
      What I do for a living is irrelevant, and you only seek to find out so you can weave that into an angle to bolster your argument
      
      You don't think what someone pays you to do for a living plays into our debate? Really? You have more or less admitted now that you are paid to push anti-speech, anti-consumer policies on the public. I think that's very relevant when you then show up in public forums to debate those issues. Do you not?
      
      The reason I spend any time here is that I get sick and tired of the hysterics that you and all of the other doomdayers whip up over a pretty simple, straight-forward bill that addresses foreign websites who profit from infringing on the copyrighted work of others.
      
      You mean you're sick and tired that people aren't letting you just steamroll their rights as they used to do in the past, so you have to show up and spew misinformed insults.
      
      The bill is broken. It is of questionable constitutionality (and you know that, which is why you want me to stop talking about it) and it will break the internet -- which you don't know because you don't understand technology. But, of course, you conveniently ignore the research that came out last week pointing out what a bad idea this bill is from the technologists who actually built and maintain the internet.
      
      And this is why "policy people" shouldn't be regulating the internet. Because they don't know what they're talking about, and have no clue the unintended consequences of their actions. All you care about is propping up some companies who want to milk their obsolete business models, at the expense of society and creativity, for a little longer.
      
      Those of us who actually care about creativity and helping society are derided as "zealots" and "extremists." It's pretty funny.
      
      So I get you don't like the way the system works.
      
      No. I like how the system works just fine. What I don't like is when people like you break the system.
      
      t won't make any difference at all. But it does provide a great case for why arguments against the bill should be dismissed as rantings
      
      Because you can't understand basic economics, technology or the law? Yeah, that's convincing...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        Mike Masnick and a few other programmer geeks think they can declare the internet broken.
        
        ho ho ho. ha ha ha.
        
        We love it when you talk crazy. We really do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        Um, you're the one sounding crazy.
        
        Ha ha ha ho ho ho don't y'all just love it? (I didn't copy! I switched the "ho" and the "ha").
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        "Break the Internet"? I wish I had a nickel for every time someone opposed to this bill dismissed DNS blocking as a "speedbump" that is laughingly easy to route around. The only notable consequence I saw was that it would force would-be freeloaders to use unreliable and unsecure methods to try to access rogue sites. Too bad. That's a risk they voluntarily assume in order to freeload.
        
        And now you claim the bill is broken too? That's pretty laughable too Masnick. I haven't seen a scholarly rebuttal of Abrams overview of the constitutionality of the bill. And while I know you've gone Yosemite Sam on the constitutional aspects of Protect IP, you aren't fit to carry the man's briefcase.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        So Newgrounds is clearly a rogue site. Gotcha.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 11:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
        You aren't even fit to clean mike's toilet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buck Lateral, 28 May 2011 @ 6:44am

oops, didn't read the byline and attributed the drivel in the article to Masnick instead of his disciple who probably believes ideas are subject to copyright because Masnick told him so. Tim, put down the Koolaid and learn the law for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 28 May 2011 @ 7:31am
  
  Re:
  Yep, and here I was led to believe you were all knowing and did not make mistakes ... go figure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BoBoB, 28 May 2011 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  The koolaid. Remember the koolaid when I can't think of anything to say. Got it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe we should make a movie, "Remember the Koolaid"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 7:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I already saw Freetard 2.
      
      Remember the Koolaid had some good points but it's dry near the end. It's not a Dark Helmet production, so the music is iffy.
      
      I'll give it 6/10.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remember the Koolaid had some good points but it's dry near the end.
        
        Well you have to add water, it says right on the envelope.
        
        yuk yuk
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think drinking the koolaid would probably make you forget that you drank it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  Masnick has NEVER said ideas are subject to copyright. Expressions are subject. In countless articles Masnick has said that it is only the expression that is copyrighted or trademarked. So why are you going on about him saying that ideas are copyrighted?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  Buck, you're a real piece of work. You come onto this site most of the time, putting forth an agenda filled with rhetorical writing and nonsense, all in the hopes of culling weak minds. I've been very disappointed with your writing style, based on FUD and poor writing, but seeing your recent posts condemning websites that are out of the country, for doing nothing but existing on the internet, I'm filled with more contempt for those of your ilk.
  
  You didn't say it here but I'm going to get right to the gist of your posts:
  
  "Rogue sites should be cut off from American businesses without any sort of right to a trial or representation for what they did wrong"
  
  Anyone reading that can tell you it's BS. I've talked to a few of the websites myself that were supposedly rogue. Some have European counterparts that can't legally *obtain* shows except through a stream on these so called "rogue" sites. Then you have to top this off with the very *fact* that most of the money that comes in, goes to server costs or is used in making features better for the community in some way, shape or form.
  
  Suddenly, they all have to fend for themselves while the US government hacks their domain in the hopes that somehow, the internet will collapse and we can go back into the 80s.
  
  "Dedication to infringing activities"
  
  Which, again, is a Bullshit excuse for "anything the music/movie/game industry doesn't like as competition".
  
  Guess what? Every day, someone creates a new movie, game, or music and express it on their favorite site. Some creators actually use copyrighted material and tell new stories based on that copyright material.
  
  So, based on this information here's a few portals or "rogue sites based on infringement":
  
  Newgrounds.com
  Armorgames.com
  Cracked.com
  Veoh.com
  Ustream.com
  Justintv.com
  
  I guess each of these sites should be brought down or at least appear in court for referring to famous people, flouting copyright laws, and showing videos created by amateurs using copyrighted material by your definition?
  
  "People profit off the works of others"
  
  Mike did it better, and I'll paraphrase.
  
  Just because someone has built a work off of someone else, doesn't make it illegal. Nothing in taking down a domain name or taking away a site's ability to make money off of advertisements have *anything* to do with alleging copyright infringement without either A) due process or B) figuring out what the infringement really is.
  
  Other than that, your other arguments have been way too much to actually follow.
  
  When you can actually come up with a post that can stay on topic instead of point fingers, blaming everyone else, maybe we can have a debate. As it stands, your arguments are old and dry with nothing to base them on but your own rhetoric. Grow up and quit the fear mongering.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:11am

Are you crazy???
Since when are endless reboots and remakes a GOOD thing??

If you want to promote creativity, tell people to come up with something new!

If there's a problem with the quality of Hollywood productions right now it's the endless "remixes" of old material.

Why do they do it? Because old properties have good brand recognition and are easier to market.

But why you would encourage that kind of laziness is completely beyond me.

Want to be creative? Come up with something new. If you don't have anything of your own to say, move aside and let someone have their chance instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: Are you crazy???
  "Since when are endless reboots and remakes a GOOD thing??
  
  Tell that to Disney.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:28am
    
    Re: Re: Are you crazy???
    What's there to tell to Disney? Their job is to make as much money as they can. They do it by protecting their copyrights/trademarks and selling branded movies/products/attractions exclusively for each major release.
    
    That is their job and they do it very well.
    
    As viewers, it is our jobs not to encourage reboots but to encourage actual originality.
    
    Hollywood will keep making reboots as long as people like Tim keep encouraging them to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeni (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      I see. So Tim wrote them, told them to do a remake and Disney listened? Okay. Right. Sure. Why not.
      
      Good grief.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Tim is one person among millions encouraging these lazy remakes and reboots.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Art isn't just about newness and originality you know. I wish there wasn't such an illiteracy when it comes to art.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Remakes can indeed be lazy. They can also be amazing, and take a creative work to a whole new level or offer a brand new spin on it that only enhances the value of the original.
        
        See movies: Apocalypse Now, The Wizard of Oz, Jaws, The Last Man On Earth - Music: House Of The Rising Sun, the White Stripes' Jolene, the Grey Album, Johnny Cash's Hurt - Books: Ulysses, Monsignor Quixote, Headhunter, Siddartha... I could go on but I just remembered you are way, way below the level of intellectual sophistication and artistic understanding required to fully appreciate anything I just listed....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        (or are you going to assert that Francis Ford Coppola, Victor Fleming, Stephen Spielberg, Vincent Price, The Animals, Jack White, Dangermouse, Johnny Cash, James Joyce, Graham Greene, Timothy Findley and Herman Hesse are all untalented hacks?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Oh, don't forget the The Wicked, Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies or Lord of the Rings.
        
        All were made from books. I guess none of these artists, directors, or producers are all talentless hacks judging from the AC's comment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        " I guess ALL of these artists, directors, or producers are talentless hacks judging from the AC's comment."
        
        >_
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        One could argue that the books of The Lord of The Rings are themselves derived of and based on other works, by that "talentless hack" J.R.R. Tolkien.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      "Their job is to make as much money as they can. They do it by protecting their copyrights"
      
      Copy protection laws are not intended to help them make as much money as they can, it's intended to promote the progress. Helping people make (some) money is merely seen as a means of promoting the progress.
      
      The problem is that Disney et al have turned IP into something that's not designed to promote the progress at all, but that's only designed to generate profits instead (ie: with the constant copy protection extensions).
      
      I don't mind if Disney does what it can, within reason (ie: no fraud), to make a profit in a free market (where IP doesn't exist). But when they use IP to make revenue, we as a society should make sure that the IP laws are set up to promote the progress and expand the public domain, not just to generate profits. Our current IP laws do nothing to promote the progress.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        To be accurate, the provision in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution reads:
        
        "To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts..."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc um, 28 May 2011 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: Are you crazy???
  They're too cheap to pay good writers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re: Are you crazy???
  Since when are endless reboots and remakes a GOOD thing??
  
  I don't think anyone was talking about "reboots and remakes" but about building on the works of those who came before. You know, like Shakespeare did.
  
  All work is derivative.
  
  Want to be creative? Come up with something new.
  
  Your line of argument here is old, tired and debunked. Why didn't you come up with something new?
  
  move aside and let someone have their chance instead.
  
  I expect this means you're done commenting here then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 3:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Are you crazy???
    All work is derivative.
    
    People like Masnick that have never had an original thought like to trot out this bs; it helps when they are trying to convince themselves that they are on the same playing field as creators.
    
    When the suggestion of being creative or coming up with something new is brought up, Masnick replies:
    
    Your line of argument here is old, tired and debunked.
    
    Of course it's none of that. But that doesn't stop the chubby nerd from pretending he can declare it like it's fact.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 4:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      You preach originality, but the best insult you can come up with is "chubby nerd"? Come on! You are such a malformed little imp I suspect your mother freebased thalidomide. You are so bad at thinking that when you talk, Chinese schoolchildren have seizures. You couldn't out-debate a horse if you took away its peanut butter. According to my Dick Compensation Conversion Chart, your style of argument is the equivalent of 4 Corvettes and 2.5 Assault Rifles. The only reason the secret world government hasn't euthanized you yet is that pity for you is the only thing stopping the aliens from blowing us up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT, 28 May 2011 @ 5:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      "People like Masnick that have never had an original thought like to trot out this bs..."
      
      So tell us what you've done that is completely original and in no way based on or derived from any prior work. Put your money where your mouth is. My guess is you won't because either you've never had an original thought or and work you list will swiftly be used to prove you wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        We all use the same language. You can't generally copyright a word or letter, but maybe you can copyright a catch phrase.
        
        The line between originality and ripping off is drawn by the judges. I think they tend to do a pretty good job. Better than Masnick, anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        How many judges are needed when one stand-up comedian rips off another?
        
        That's right, it's zero because you can't copyright jokes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Oh, you can. But comedians run on a few different paradigms than copyright law. Social mores regulates the joke field, not copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 6:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      You sound like a broken recording industry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 9:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      
      All work is derivative.
      People like Masnick that have never had an original thought like to trot out this bs
      
      And people like you who leech off *real* creators call it BS, when it's completely correct.
      
      I'm a photographer, poet, graphic artist, musician, programmer and writer.
      
      All work *IS* derivative.
      
      Suppose you want to be a sculptor. So you go to school to learn how. What do you study? *THE WORKS OF OTHER SCULPTORS*
      
      Suppose you want to be a painter. So you go to school to learn how. What do you study? *THE WORKS OF OTHER PAINTERS*
      
      Suppose you want to be a photographer. So you go to school to learn how. What do you study? *THE WORKS OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS*
      
      This is true for *EVERY* art. You learn how to do it by studying the works of those who came before you, and incorporate their techniques into your own. this is the very definition of derivative.
      
      The only people who think art is *not* derivative are those who don't understand it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        So Mr. "photographer, poet, graphic artist, musician, programmer and writer"
        is it OK for you to take a perfect digital copy of a photograph take by a famous photographer, sell copies and keep the money for yourself?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        is it OK for you to take a perfect digital copy of a photograph take by a famous photographer, sell copies and keep the money for yourself?
        
        Ethically, or legally? Obviously that would be a legal issue. But if copyright law didn't exist, then I think clearly that would not be unethical to do. So did you have a point other than the existence of copyright law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Really? You have no ethical qualms over taking the works of Annie Leibovitz or Ansel Adams, copying them, selling them and pocketing the money? How about plagiarizing a masters thesis? Cheating on your taxes? Stealing from a blind man's cup? Stop me when I'm getting close to your ethical boundary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Really? You have no ethical qualms over taking the works of Annie Leibovitz or Ansel Adams, copying them, selling them and pocketing the money?
        
        Of course not, because nobody is harmed by that. Why would you have an ethical problem with it (again, in the absence of copyright law)? I assume you're referring to selling them as "copies of the works of Ansel Adams", so there's no fraud or plagiarism.
        
        How about plagiarizing a masters thesis? Cheating on your taxes? Stealing from a blind man's cup?
        
        All these involve harm to someone, so yes they are ethically wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        I have no ethical boundary.
        
        Here's a hint: never ask an amoral person where their ethical boundaries are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        You know, this reminded me of the days when women were into these nested tabled, graphical layouts with images (and for load time they'd slice them...). Anyone else remember those? Well, they were all the rage for a while and tons and tons of women 'round the world used images paid artists had online to showcase their work.
        
        Most of the women always asked for permission and not a one woman I knew was refused and why? Because those artists only asked for their name credited and if they had a web site, their URL linked to it.
        
        They loved it because guess what - it got their name spread far and wide for ZERO $$$. Totally free advertising for them that would have cost them a fortune otherwise.
        
        And to think...all it took was a digital COPY of their work to help them make more sales...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Are you crazy???
    [blockquote]All work is derivative.[/blockquote]
    
    Isn't it amazing people keep managing to produce new books, movies, and music without needing to abolish copyright?
    
    I don't think you give the creativity of the human mind enough credit.
    
    I'd rather see something new than something so derivative even a judge will call it a rip-off.
    
    You and Tim can keep your "re-imaginings" all for yourselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      "I'd rather see something new than something so derivative even a judge will call it a rip-off."
      
      and why should the law revolve around providing you with your personal desires? If that's what you want to see, fund (or create) it yourself. Don't rely on the law to make it for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Why should everyone else be burdened with the cost of enforcing and abiding by these ridiculous, expensive, and intrusive laws just so that art that meets your (or some judges) arbitrary definition of "novel" can be made.
        
        Novel content will be made perfectly fine without IP laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Ridiculous?- only to you because you don't like them. To everyone else they've worked fine for centuries.
        
        Expensive? - How? Because you might have to reach into your wallet and (gasp!) actually pay for what you consume?
        
        Intrusive? - How? Because they intrude on you're nightly downloading ritual?
        
        You guys have nothing. Seriously. Nothing but FUD, lies, bad analogies and thoroughly unconvincing "arguments".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        "Ridiculous?- only to you because you don't like them. To everyone else they've worked fine for centuries."
        
        No, just to big corporations.
        
        "Expensive? - How? Because you might have to reach into your wallet and (gasp!) actually pay for what you consume?"
        
        Expensive to enforce. Service providers have to police it, that costs money, people have to take time to magically figure out what is and what isn't infringement, time is money (so it indirectly costs money there too), and the government wastes tax dollars enforcing it.
        
        You want IP to be about making sure that people pay for what they consume. If that's its purpose, then it should be abolished. Its purpose should be to promote the progress and expand the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 4:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        When you buy a DVD, CD whatever, do you truly not realize what you are purchasing is A COPY??? Cheap, mass produced COPIES.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 4:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Yes! I do realize that!
        
        When you shoplift a DVD, CD whatever, do you truly not realize what you are shoplifting is A COPY??? Cheap, mass produced COPIES.
        
        Yes! You do! You're finally making the connection!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Um. I don't shop lift. Defaming again, I see.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        It's wrong to shoplift a DVD for the same reason that it's wrong to shoplift a $.10 piece of candy at the gas station.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Shoplifting != piracy, unless you mean the ancient form of piracy, of plundering.
        Except that is not what you mean.
        
        You mean to imply that shoplifting is the same as copyright infringement. Except that it isn't. Not by law (one is a criminal offense, and the other is a civil offense) and not by any other means.
        
        Theft is taking one product which deprives another person access to that product.
        
        Copyright infringement is making a copy of a product, but that does not deprive anyone from any access to the product.
        
        Copyright infringement is the only """""theft""""" where after the act you have more of the product than before the act.
        
        Making copies is like cloning sheep. At first you have one sheep, and now you have two sheep. Both give the same wool, have I deprived the farmer of the wool of his sheep? No, because he still has his sheep. Was there a crime involved? Perhaps against nature, but that's about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Well said, Marcel!
        
        A copy is a copy is a copy is a copy and a copy never has the value of an original.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        I hate to even dignify this piece of idiocy but the genetic material you'd need to obtain from the sheep is the property of the farmer. There is a very lucrative business trading in frozen bull semen or frozen thoroughbred racing horse semen. The farmer (but perhaps not the bull) would likely object if you went into the barn and helped yourself, as enjoyable as that might be for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        What if you asked if you could swab a sheep's cheek, and he said that would be fine? Then would making a copy of his sheep still be stealing from him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 29 May 2011 @ 5:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        "Ridiculous?- only to you because you don't like them. To everyone else they've worked fine for centuries."
        
        Wow. So since 1976, and then again 1998, now means "centuries." Well, guess I need to brush up on my terms and time scales. I was under the impression "centuries" meant several hundreds of years. What a dope I am.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      "Isn't it amazing people keep managing to produce new books, movies, and music without needing to abolish copyright?"
      
      But such works are still derivative. and new books and new works will just as well be created without copy protection laws, which is the whole point. "But they're derivative". Yeah, so is currently created content. Everything is a derivative of what came before. What you're typing is a derivative of the English language. That's no excuse for copy protection to exist.
      
      Copy protection laws don't exist without government. My ability to copy is a natural right. If you want copy protection laws to exist, the burden is on you to justify its existence. The point here is that your derivative argument is not justification for its existence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        My ability to copy is a natural right.
        
        As is my natural right to kick you over and over again in the balls.
        
        Says so right in the "Natural Rights" handbook.
        
        As I know you don't want to inhibit my natural rights, let's get started right away.
        
        Like, today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        "As is my natural right to kick you over and over again in the balls."
        
        It's perfectly legal to agree with some governmental laws without agreeing with every possible law that a government may pass. I can reasonably agree with laws that prevent violence without agreeing with laws that ban me from drinking water. But your argument assumes otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        "It's perfectly legal" should read "It's perfectly reasonable"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 29 May 2011 @ 12:43am
    
    Re: Re: Are you crazy???
    All work is derivative.
    
    Sorry, going to have to call 'bullshit' on that one Mike.
    
    What was painting derived from ?
    
    what was music derived from ?
    
    What was writing derived from ?
    
    What was sculpture derived from ?
    
    Did the American native derive their totem poles (sculpture) from the ancient Greeks ? or the maya ?
    
    or from those at Christmas island ? or from ancient egypt ?
    
    or from china or japan ?
    
    IF 'all work' is derivative, it would not have formed at different times and different places on earth would it Mike ???
    
    So the Australian aboriginal people had to have seen ancient cave paintings from 'where'??? somewhere, before they could 'derive' their own ???
    
    Sorry, but "all work is derivative" is simple bullshit Mike, and for someone like you to make that statement shows you have a massive lack of understanding, and no concept of the real world..
    
    But I guess, you can fool some of the people some of the time,,,, and if you have enough people you can make a living from it... as you have..
    
    So if it derivate, and you feel you can prove that, you can by showing us the 'common origin' of all the 'derived' 'work'..
    
    Good luck with that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 12:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      nobody who uses that many triple-question-marks and quadruple commas (seriously, wtf?) has any place talking about art. Or talking at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 1:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      Totems are derivitive works of actual animals
      
      Statues are derivitive of whoever/whatever the subject matter is, same for paintings
      
      All music ever created uses the same core concepts in their creation
      
      I'm willing to debate the merits of copyright anytime you want but at least try to understand the obvious would you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 5:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
      What if God "copyrighted" his creation of man? How far would we have gotten?
      
      Atheist? Believe we came from monkeys? Okay, then monkeys have one hell of a lawsuit...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcel de Jong (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Sex would be illegal, if God had copyrighted the creation of man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
        Yup! Wonder how some would react to that...
        
        And big pharm and their viagra couldn't exist to make their fortunes...they ought to be on their knees in gratitude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:14am

The funny thing is, as jealously as Disney guards its copyrights, you can buy DVD copies of "Song Of The South" (which has never been released on home video in the U.S. and never been officially released on DVD anywhere) on the internet without fear of The Mouse knocking on your door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:16am

Also...
What kind of grown man calls watching children's Disney movies a "pleasure"? Seriously, do you have the intellectual capacity and interests of an 8 year old girl?

I'm guessing Twilight blew your mind as well, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: Also...
  What kind of grown man calls watching children's Disney movies a "pleasure"?
  
  My guess would be a grown man with kids, smart guy.
  
  Seriously, do you have the intellectual capacity and interests of an 8 year old girl?
  
  Enjoying a movie doesn't have to mean getting wrapped up in the story and squealing when rapunzel lets her hair down. Disney does happen to do some of the most amazing animation in the world, and their work is full of respected original musical composition - as a big fan of the art of cartoons, I can get a lot of enjoyment out of Disney flicks - in fact I would say more as an adult than as a kid, since now I appreciate the art of it while I was *never* that taken by most of the stories. Then there's Fantasia which bored me to tears as a kid, but is as wonderful as a trip to an art gallery now...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT, 28 May 2011 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re: Also...
  The weakness of your insults nicely parallels the weakness of your arguments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 7:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Also...
    They're not meant as insults. I'm genuinely baffled by adults who proudly get off on kids' entertainment.
    
    Disney movies are awful. They are great for 10 year olds, and if I had kids, I would take them to see them. But that's about it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 1:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Also...
      You've obviously never seen Avatar: the Last Airbender by Nickolodeon. One of the most well-written kid's shows in recent history.
      
      Or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which is apparently a cult Web hit.
      
      Or anty Pixar movie. They have wonderfully dark overtones that entertain all ages.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Also...
        "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which is apparently a cult Web hit."
        
        Yeah, I was going to make a joke about those people, but I thought some of these people here would find it insulting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also...
        Wow, you are one grouchy little fuck, hmm? Do you hate children and their smiles? Does a park full of happy kids make you tense up and want to burn things? I don't think that's healthy dude - this can only end badly, with either a therapist or Chris Hansen I'd wager. You should watch some cartoons and try to chill out a bit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 7:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also...
        Do you hate children and their smiles? Does a park full of happy kids make you tense up and want to burn things? I don't think that's healthy dude - this can only end badly, with either a therapist or Chris Hansen I'd wager.
        
        Actually, the ones who end up with Chris Hansen are the ones you enjoy kids a bit too much...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 7:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also...
        Ahem, that should be "the ones WHO enjoy kids". Mea culpa.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT, 29 May 2011 @ 3:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Also...
      "I'm genuinely baffled by adults who proudly get off on kids' entertainment. "
      
      You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
      
      (Not that you'll get the reference, coz you'd have to have watched a Disney flick...)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
frances plick, 28 May 2011 @ 7:47am

You don't need to wait
You can try to license anything. If you want to make "Tangled 2", go to the original creator and offer to share the revenue. Maybe they'll take it.

The sad thing is that this web site often uses "improve upon" or "innovate" to mean "not share any of the revenue with the creator."

I know that the licensing can be complicated, more complicated than it should be, but try it. You'll be surprised how often a check works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: You don't need to wait
  That's a very reasonable argument.
  
  I would point out that based on past observation, my expectation is that the original author would feel entitled to the vast majority of the profits from the new guy's original ideas for improvements.
  
  I will assume that there are some copyright owners that are reasonable. I just never seem to hear of them.
  
  Oh, wait. I do hear of them. They are railed against and blasted when they license their works under one of the various CC licenses. Or software authors are called freetards when they make their works available under an open source license.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Muir (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 8:31am

It *is* about the money
It can't just be the money, because most ideas don't generate a lifetime of income.

The Disney corporation is notorious for stretching the expression of an idea into an endless revenue stream. Merchandising is one thing, but more critical to stretching it out over more than a lifetime is re-releasing the same material in various formats every ten years or so. I can't remember how many times Disney has told me "This is the last chance you'll have to own a classic." Yet that chance seems to come up each decade: film, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, special editions, anniversary editions, collector's editions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 9:39am

Copyright forever
Seems as I recall Sonny Bono once made the comment that if he could, he'd make the term of copyright forever minus one day.

I guess their current intent is to do it 20 years at a time, whenever Dizzney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire.

Disgusting. I fear our congress has come under the thrall of mega-corporations and has had their eyes dazzled to do whatever is the bidding of their masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: Copyright forever
  So what? Explain to me how that affects YOU negatively.
  
  A creator has a tough enough time making a living as it is. After years of living on no or low wages, if they hit the jackpot, great for them.
  
  It doesn't affect your lazy, unoriginal ass one bit. You're just jealous that these people have talent and you don't. Tough shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 28 May 2011 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re: Copyright forever
    Who cares how "tough" it is? No one should get paid in perpetuity for work they did in the past.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:41am
    
    Re: Re: Copyright forever
    Monopolies on creative works place restrictions on those wh whant to build upon the work, that affects artists negativly.
    
    Monopolies raise the price of goods, that affects everyone negativly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re: Copyright forever
    You're officially dumb and don't know how art works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Copyright forever
    A creator has a tough enough time making a living as it is.
    
    Indeed. Which is why it sucks that we limit the works from which they can build off of? It's amazing how much copyright stifles artists these days.
    
    I'm glad that we finally agree on something!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
      It's already been explained upthread in the simplest of terms why copyright is necessary and good.
      
      If you don't understand those simple concepts, you're either dense, or simply interested in promoting your leech philosophy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        The claim that copyright is necessary has been debunked before it was even made. We've had lots of art long before copyright esisted, and the internet has shown us artists/programmers that are willing to contribute great works for free in spite of the fact they could try to control the distribution of them in order to sell copies.
        
        I would have agreed if you said that copyright is useful, but it clearly isn't the be all end all you think it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Strawman. No one said art didn't exist before copyright. duh.
        
        It was the fact that it was such a fucked up environment for creators that brought up the need for copyright.
        
        This goes back centuries at this point. It is amusing to see you people argue for a return to the middle ages...
        
        Good luck with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        "It was the fact that it was such a fucked up environment for creators that brought up the need for copyright."
        
        You say that because you are clueless about the history of copy protection laws. This isn't why copy protection laws arose at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        I'm more than familiar with the Statute of Anne, thanks.
        
        Authors are creators.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        If you're familiar with the history of copy protection laws the you should know that they originated as a result of the lobbying efforts of publishers and middlemen. There is little to no evidence to suggest that it arose to facilitate a better environment for creators.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        WE had the "pirates are killing ther industry!!!" thing for centuries; after all the Printing Press was re-invented in the mid-14th Century,a after existing the Romance of the Three Kingdoms-era China.
        
        And if you know about the history fo the Statute of Anne, you will also know that the statute was pressured by a number of Guilds of the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        "It was the fact that it was such a fucked up environment for creators that brought up the need for copyright."
        
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Outside the Internet, the environment for creators and authors and the public is a messed up environment, and the laws (thanks to the efforts of the RIAA et al) intentionally make it so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        More inane babbling from a tech nerd that has no idea what he's talking about.
        
        You're a million miles away from what goes on in the creative world, and it shows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        No, it's the claim that 95+ year copy protection lengths are good for anyone other than big corporations that's a million miles away from reality. Your claims are the same as the claims made by those who are responsible for copy protection lengths and they are about as absurd as copy protection lengths.
        
        What's absurd here is the laws in place and the claims by those responsible for those laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 6:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        As an artist who has devoted an entire life to the arts, you're also million miles away from what goes on in the creative world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Not a strawman. You said copyright is needed, but history shows we get along without it in the past and current events indicate the creation of new software/art wouldn't grind to a halt even if copyright was abolished or drastically reduced in scope.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Copyright forever
    "A creator has a tough enough time making a living as it is."
    
    Most people have a tough enough time making a living as it is. Why should creators receive special privileges?
    
    and just because creators have a tough time making a living is irrelevant to whether or not IP helps them make a living.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
      Why should creators receive special privileges?
      
      Because they are special.
      
      We know you people hate that fact, but that's life. Deal with it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Does your mom tell you you're cool and handsome too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        "Because they are special."
        
        No.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        We already know that's how you people feel.
        
        Doesn't mean you're not obviously wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Does your guidance counselor know you have sex dreams about him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        You're hitting the sauce early tonite, Marcus.
        
        I'll tip a LaBatt's back for you later...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 5:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Is that code for when you write "Special" on your forehead and cry in the mirror?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 5:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Just because you consider them special doesn't mean they should receive special privileges.
        
        If you consider them special, fine, you can voluntarily obey copy protection privileges. but don't impose laws that force everyone else to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        As a creator who is special you should listen to me when I say: You're wrong.
        
        Everyone is creative and everyone is special.
        
        Why does this frighten you so much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 9:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Go write a hit song or a critically acclaimed album to back up your assertion that "everyone is creative and everyone is special".
        
        Some people are very, very obviously more special than others.
        
        Welcome to reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        "Go write a hit song or a critically acclaimed album to back up your assertion that "everyone is creative and everyone is special"."
        
        No ones hit song is worth taking away my right to copy. You want a hit song, fund/make it yourself, don't use the government to take away my rights just because you want a hit song.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        The fact that you want a hit song is your problem, not mine. IP laws make it my problem. It shouldn't be. You want a hit song, it's your problem, make or fund that hit song yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        and if some group of people want a hit song, no matter how large of people is, then they can also fund it themselves. The fact that some group of people want a hit song is their problem, not mine. IP laws make it my problem and it shouldn't be. If that group can't fund a hit song without making it my problem then that's also their problem too. Their inability to fund a hit song without IP laws isn't my problem. If they want, they can voluntarily follow IP principles to fund that hit song, I don't care. But don't start spreading your rules to me, I don't want them. The fact that you can't fund your hit song isn't my problem. If they can't fund it then perhaps it's because they don't want that hit song badly enough. If the group of people is large enough, it should be easy enough for them to collectively fund their hit song.
        
        Not to mention that most artists make most of their money via concerts, and not record sales.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        no matter how large the group of people is *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 2:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        What *right* do you have to copy?
        
        The same *right* I have to repeatedly kick you in the balls?
        
        This silly blog is an interesting insight into the mindset of the lunatic fringe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        The same "right" we all have to human nature.
        
        Look up the word "copy": an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original.
        
        It's not criminal, nor is it "illegal" to copy. Well, some WANT it to be but you can put it on paper all you want, you're not going to alter human nature. Can't be done.
        
        If you find an original Picasso and you take that original piece of art work without paying you're stealing. Agree?
        
        But if a student of art practices their skills and paints a pretty good replica of a Picasso painting, how is that "stealing"? Experts know an original and always will.
        
        The copy, on the other hand, will never have any serious value. And the artists knows that. Seems so elementary IMHO...
        
        Curious ... Do you think every Elvis impersonator should be arrested for "copyright infringement" because they copied the likeness of another human being's existence?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 5:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        PS. "The same *right* I have to repeatedly kick you in the balls?"
        
        That is physical violence - hardly a comparison.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        As someone who draws, I'm confused as to why I have to write a song?
        
        There's more to art than music.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        "Some people are very, very obviously more special than others."
        
        Please, tell me you are kidding.
        
        There's something thing called "talent", and everyone is more talented in certain areas than others. But that's how we compliment one another. It sure as shootin' doesn't make anyone "special".
        
        To me, "special" is the retarded child, the autistic child, the handicapped person who still finds a way to excel in some field - now that is special.
        
        And just for the record, I admire talent. I love to listen to a good singer. I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket! I love watching a good dancer because I dance about as good as Elaine on Seinfeld. I admire people who are mathematically inclined because I stink at math.
        
        But because these people have a talent in a specific area, by no means does that make them "special". Get over yourself and join us in the real world...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Copyright forever
    "A creator has a tough enough time making a living as it is."
    
    and they hardly ever make money from record sales, most of the time the copy protection goes to the record labels, and it's the labels that make most of the money. Most musicians money comes from concerts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 2:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
      Snore.
      
      Freetard's ignorance of how things actually work will never be a justification for their parasitical behavior.
      
      And like you people would ever have a clue in the first place...
      
      VC companies are gigantic pussies compared to record labels. Record labels front everything up front. Good luck getting VC nerds to do a deal like that...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright forever
        Hahaha... yeah, record labels front everything so they can keep the artist locked in debt for years. Most artists never recoup, and that means they never make a penny beyond their advance - are you denying that, or just claiming its a good thing somehow?
        
        VCs are investors. Record labels are loan sharks. I know which one I'd rather work with. I guess you think payday loans and mafia favours are good ideas too, hmm?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re: Copyright forever
  The Copyright Extension Act of 1998, S.505 otherwise known as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act".
  
  "SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
  This title may be referred to as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act"."
  
  From http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 11:30am

Evils of Copyright
Excellent article, and I think it would be appropriate to extend it to ALL "big business" or "defensive" IP, not just
the eternal abuse of copyright!
I know small entity IP (maybe not copyright, which I don't do, but...) is useful both the individual and for the common good. I have looked into the matter extensively (intending to become an electrician, which I am also very good at, if not....), and I have IMO incontrovertible facts supporting that. Of course, I realize that today, people make up their mind, and after arriving at some prejudiced viewpoint are interested only in "facts" supporting their prejudices Take the people who think entertainment is important, rather than just entertaining and lucrative ;>(.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony B goode, 28 May 2011 @ 4:18pm

stupids
why don't you guys create something original and stop trying to freeload off everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 6:36am
  
  Re: stupids
  You mean like judges who create "original rulings" like this one:
  
  "A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Thursday struck down a campaign finance law which bans corporations from making contributions to federal candidates, citing the controversial Supreme Court decision in Citizens United..."
  http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/05/federal-judge-strikes-down-ban-on-corporate-donatio ns-to-candidates.php
  
  Sue the judge! Copying! (Good grief.)
  
  Just think about lawsuits and case laws - how they ALWAYS look to previous cases and the subsequent rulings as a basis for court cases.
  
  So by the logic of you "anti copy" people, should this practice be abolished as well? Good luck with that one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: stupids
  Why don't you learn how to sell your material without monopoly privileges and stealing from the public by preventing works from lapsing into the public domain?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 4:23pm

If a person has the talent to improve someone else's creative work, then they should have the talent to create their own original work - without having to anyone else's.

For example, let's say that you like the work of J.R.R. Tolkien. Let's say you have some ideas about how you could "improve" the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, you are unable to reach agreement with the rights holders for the Tolkien works.

No problem! Just go write YOUR OWN set of stories with YOUR OWN characters.

If you are unable to create your own works from the ground up, then you are unlikely to do well with those of others, and this brings me to my next point:

If I develop a creative work that the world loves, then I don't want others tramping in and screwing it up with their own versions of it - hawking them as members of my created universe. (Ever see the Ladders commercial from a few years ago, where the guy's trying to play tennis and then this mob of incompetent tennis players swarms the court? It's like that.)

Not only is someone who trespasses on another's copyrighted works (and trademarked properties) stealing from the original creator, but they are also diluting product quality.

Go write your own - and make it YOUR OWN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re:
  Nope, sorry. Artists will continue to appropriate, remix, rebuild, alter and transform as they see fit, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it except attempt to ruin their lives by suing them, which is a real swell thing to do since their activities don't hurt you at all (that's right, your tennis court analogy is complete bullshit, and I hope you are smart enough to see why).
  
  So if you want to create, prepare to have your creations reimagined by others. If you don't like it, tough titties - best you can do is get some cash out of a lawsuit. Injunctions won't do a thing - work will always be leaked and shared. Have fun fighting the new and amazing reality of the creative, collaborative, cultural commons while you slowly become completely obsolete.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re:
  "If a person has the talent to improve someone else's creative work, then they should have the talent to create their own original work - without having to anyone else's."
  
  and why shouldn't they be allowed to do both?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    They are and they do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 1:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cite please. There's a reason tropes exist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GaryInCalifornia, 28 May 2011 @ 5:26pm

�If that protection wasn't there, people would just take choruses from Beatles songs, slap some new lyrics over it, write a new verse and go make money on a song where they didn't even write the hook or best part.�

If it is just exceptionally talented individuals who attain a certain level of popularity or professional creativity that the copy laws are protecting then lets call it that and stop pretending otherwise.

It would be great if some of the advocates would offer some examples of who else and how else the laws are providing practical necessary advantages that clearly benefit the rest of society including public education, libraries and museum consortia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 7:00pm

My apologies for being severely late for the party being held in my honor. (Well, scrolling back through the comments, it actually seems to be about 50% dishonor, but I'll take what I can get.)

I'd also like to take a moment to thank Marcus, Mike, Jay, Jeni, the Eejit and the many others (including various AC's [I'm sorry. I don't know your names.]) who waded into the comment threads to bust heads (metaphorically speaking, presumably) in my absence. I appreciate all your efforts, especially Marcus, who went toe-to-toe with the AC also known as ALL CAPS for so long he was reduced to typing something resembling an eye chart on the right side of the page.

I can't answer everything brought up here (and most of it has been tackled already, and by people who are more qualified to, um... tackle...[?]), but I'll try to tackle a few:

1. The first commenter answered my question with a logical answer (cover versions), using one of the few instances of copyright law that actually seems to be built on common sense. There are a few snags keeping it from being a blanket answer (see also: the epic Marcus v AC subthread), and it only handles one aspect of copyright law affecting only one form of artistic expression, music. See also: Fair Use, sampling/remixing -- issues that generally get resolved in the courtroom.

2. AC @9:05pm - Don't give up your day job Tim, because damn you suck at comedy.

Heckling is more effective when you target it properly. If you want to insult my comedy skills, you may want to try one of these pieces, which were written in a comedic style:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/17205614418/uk-injunction-process-revised-to-bet ter-fit-realities-internet-communication.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110522/15562714 383/open-letter-to-sony-ceo-howard-stringer.shtml

Have at it.

3. Buck Lateral - You can call me out on IDEA if you'd like. That was poorly worded on my part. However, you're just jumping on miswording to avoid the bigger issue: Why does copyright need to last more than lifetime? We're looking at 70+ years minimum pretty much all the way across the board. Between you and ALL CAPS, plenty of wordy hay was made about cover tunes and not being able to copyright an idea, but neither of you want to respond directly to the question I asked.

Buck, you mention "legitimate debate" and accuse me (well, Mike first and then me) of "whipping up hysteria." If I concede your point that I did this intentionally, where was all the "hysteria"? You're the only one beating this one word to death. If anyone caught any freetardian koolaided hysteria, it was you.

As for the Koolaid (and the welcome return of the word "freetard" after its self-imposed banishment)? I'm sure you'll find this hard to believe, but it is possible for multiple people to come to the same conclusions without having to attend some sort of mass brainwashing or webinar or whatever. It would stand to reason that Mike would bring in like-minded writers. DailyKOS does it. The Drudge Report does it. Reason does it. Pretty much any site with a distinct viewpoint brings in people who are like-minded. Stop trying to drum up hysteria of your own by painting everyone involved with this site (writers, readers and commenters) as blank-eyed zombie drones in service to Masnick. It gets you nothing but half-assed pats on the back from like-minded AC trolls and instantly marginalizes whatever point you were trying to make.

(Yet another) AC:

"Tim is one person among millions encouraging these lazy remakes and reboots."

Do me a favor: click on my profile and grab as many links to comments or posts I've written showing my encouragement of lazy remakes and reboots. Then post them here.

"What kind of grown man calls watching children's Disney movies a "pleasure"? Seriously, do you have the intellectual capacity and interests of an 8 year old girl?"

I'm guessing Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute is one of those grown men who does. I'm quoting his piece. He certainly seemed to enjoy it.

And I'll go ahead and paint a big target on my back for you: I enjoy watching Disney movies. It helps that I have kids, so I actually see more of them then I would on my own. Pretty much everything Pixar has done under Disney's banner has been excellent. "The Emperor's New Groove" was a blast. If I'm not mistaken, "Tron" is a Disney flick. Did you check that one out? Or were the theaters overrun with 8-year-old girls? How about "National Treasure?" "Pirates of the Caribbean?"

Now, go ahead and pound the hell out of that target. When you get to the point in the beating where you answer my question about the absurd length of copyright protection, wake me up and let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 8:28pm
  
  Re:
  the absurd length of copyright protection
  
  I honestly don't see anything absurd about it. I don't see it stifling any creativity worth protecting.
  
  I happen to believe there are still new stories yet to be told, and I would rather watch those.
  
  While I think all three of the other Disney flicks you referenced were about as stimulating as pablum, amazingly all were made without requiring any changes to copyright law.
  
  Writers sat down and wrote stories deemed 'original' under existing law, and then those movies were made, and hundreds of millions were earned for that work.
  
  That doesn't seem so bad to me. Better than watching yet another remake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 10:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I honestly don't see anything absurd about it. I don't see it stifling any creativity worth protecting. "
    
    Why should it stifle creativity just because it is your opinion that such creativity is not worth creating.
    
    "I happen to believe there are still new stories yet to be told, and I would rather watch those."
    
    Fund or write them yourself, don't force everyone else to abide by ridiculous laws just because you want to see some story. You want a story, that's your problem, not anyone else's. These oppressive laws wrongfully make it everyone eles problem, and it shouldn't be.
    
    "That doesn't seem so bad to me. Better than watching yet another remake."
    
    Laws shouldn't revolve around what doesn't seem so bad to you and what is better for you. You want something, do/fund it yourself, don't use laws to get others to do it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Laws shouldn't revolve around what doesn't seem so bad to you and what is better for you.
      
      Laws tend to revolve around what is best for industry and the marketplace as a whole. Fortunately for me, the majority of industry agrees with my point of view. In the past few years, politicians seem to have gotten that message loud and clear, and we're beginning to see positive results from that.
      
      Even consumers agree in increasing numbers - IP is a good thing and deserves to be protected.
      
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/wiggin_entertainment_survey/
      
      The world isn't perfect. Whether we live with laws or no laws at all, someone will get the short end of the stick. I'd rather it be the guy in his bedroom who wants to 'remix' Tron than the people who actually made it in the first place.
      Who creates more value? The people who put hundreds of millions into funding the production so that they can make an exclusive return on merchandising/franchising, or the guy in the bedroom making a mashup?
      
      I say the original creators.
      
      If they want, under current law, they can still let the mashup artists do whatever they want.
      
      And if the mashup artists want to step up to the plate, they can graduate beyond 'remixing' and make something all of their own.
      
      Sounds to me like a pretty decent compromise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Laws tend to revolve around what is best for industry"
        
        Unfortunately, this is true, but that's not what's best for society. Just what's best for industry.
        
        "I'd rather it be the guy in his bedroom who wants to 'remix' Tron than the people who actually made it in the first place."
        
        The people who make the music do, thanks to the record labels.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (that is, the people who make the music get the short end of the stick).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one is forced to sign to a major label these days. There are endless possibilities in terms of indie labels and self-releasing.
        
        Yet the majority of unsigned musicians still want to be signed by a major label when surveyed.
        
        Funny.
        
        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032511unsigned
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No one is forced to sign to a major label these days."
        
        No one said anyone is.
        
        "There are endless possibilities in terms of indie labels and self-releasing."
        
        Alternatives exist, but that doesn't diminish the impact that our current government imposed monopolies create.
        
        "Yet the majority of unsigned musicians still want to be signed by a major label when surveyed."
        
        Again, the system is set up to make it artificially and wrongfully more difficult to get access to a large audience without going through the gatekeepers thanks to the existing government imposed monopolies on information distribution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 12:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There are endless possibilities in terms of indie labels and self-releasing."
        
        Why should the burden of distribution be placed on everyone else to route around the wrongful monopolies that the government does create. No, the government needs to abolish the information distribution monopolies that it wrongfully creates and it needs to regulate public airwaves in the public interest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The people who put hundreds of millions into funding the production so that they can make an exclusive return on merchandising/franchising, or the guy in the bedroom making a mashup?"
        
        No, the record labels create no value. The system wrongfully grants a monopoly on broadcasting, it grants a monopoly on cableco infrastructure use (or the building of new infrastructure), and it prevents restaurants from hosting independent performers without paying some parasite third party absurd licensing fees (or face a potentially expensive lawsuit) under the pretext that someone might infringe. Outside the Internet, marketing and distribution are artificially and wrongfully taken away from individuals and independents thanks to oppressive laws. The monopolist gatekeepers are doing no one any favors by offering something that could exist without their position as gatekeepers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The "monopolistic gatekeepers" are pumping billions into financing these productions. I'd love to see someone 'crowdfund' an Avatar-sized film by begging for donations on YouTube, but we both know that's not going to happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The "monopolistic gatekeepers" are pumping billions into financing these productions."
        
        evidence needed.
        
        "I'd love to see someone 'crowdfund' an Avatar-sized film by begging for donations on YouTube, but we both know that's not going to happen."
        
        That's kinda the point, it's difficult, and many of the information distribution channels that can efficiently help content creators gain recognition are wrongfully monopolized. Those government imposed monopolies wrongfully deny content creators access to these information distribution channels, channels that can further promote their content, without going through a gatekeeper.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and it is these government imposed monopolies that artificially and wrongfully make it more difficult for content creators to distribute their content and gain recognition. It is wrong for the government to grant a monopoly on both content and on distribution at the same time. The monopolized content wrongfully displaces permissibly licensed content making it more difficult for such content and their creators to gain recognition, especially when you have a system of gatekeepers that artificially keeps permissibly licensed content from being distributed.
        
        If the government is going to regulate public airwaves it should do so in the public interest. Granting corporations monopoly control over those public airwaves is not in the public interest.
        
        and there is absolutely no good reason for the government to grant cableco infrastructure monopolies.
        
        and the government should impose huge penalties on collection societies that wrongfully threaten restaurants and other venues with lawsuits for hosting independents and not paying those parasitic collection societies fees under the pretext that someone might infringe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 3:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Kids, this is your mind on the internet after some salvia...
        
        Anyway, let's attempt to address at least part of your "point":
        
        There are no more gatekeepers.
        
        There is nothing standing in the way of any artist anywhere to distribute their work everywhere, thanks to the web.
        
        Nothing at all. *THIS* is the truly great result of the internet.
        
        Yet you're all still bitching about "gatekeepers"...
        
        When will Mike Masnick and the rest of you people stuck in 2003 come join us in the 2nd decade of the 21st century??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There are no more gatekeepers."
        
        Spreading more misinformation I see.
        
        Yes there are. Broadcasting monopolies are gatekeepers. Sure there are alternatives, no thanks to the **AA et al (they're the ones responsible for wrongfully imposing the gatekeepers), who have placed a burden on everyone else to circumvent those gatekeepers thanks to broken laws, but that doesn't negate the fact that gatekeepers do exist and that these gatekeepers are harmful to everyone else who wishes to use that spectra. The gatekeepers place the burden on everyone else to circumvent them and that burden gives the gatekeepers an unfair advantage over everyone else. I don't mind if these people want to compete in a free market, but a market where the government grants them monopoly power is not a free market.
        
        I have just as much a right to use that spectra as anyone else. The gatekeepers have no inherit right to exclude me from using that spectra, using existing (or building new) cableco infrastructure, etc... The laws need to reflect that. If the government is going to regulate public airwaves, it should be in the public interest. Handing exclusive use over to large corporations is not in the public interest.
        
        "There is nothing standing in the way of any artist anywhere to distribute their work everywhere, thanks to the web."
        
        No thanks to the monopolists. The burden is still placed on everyone else to circumvent those gatekeepers. Everyone else has to figure out and implement other ways to distribute the content, the monopolists have these monopolies and they contribute nothing. The fact that alternatives exist does not justify the existence of monopolist gatekeepers. The gatekeepers aren't the ones helping with these alternatives, those alternatives could be provided for without them. So because everyone else, and not the gatekeepers, has overcome the burden of creating alternatives, these gatekeeper positions are suddenly justified? No. These people have no business using the government to posses an unlevel playing field.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 12:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        evidence needed.
        
        What evidence do you need? Avatar cost ~$450 million including promotion. Do you think you can just go to a bank and take out a personal loan for that amount? Or that you'll get that much in PayPal donations if you ask a bunch of subscribers on YouTube? Or that anyone would have invested that much if they weren't expecting exclusive distribution/merchandising rights in return?
        
        This is how business works. Big companies make the big moves little people cannot.
        
        No, big companies should not be left free to trample all over little people. But I see more trampling from pirates these days than I even do from any of these IP companies.
        
        If you want to make something and distribute it on your own, there has never been a better time. So I find it hard to sympathize with your "evil gatekeeper" arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 12:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Avatar cost ~$450 million including promotion."
        
        errr... I was only referring to the cost of distribution, not the cost of making the movie.
        
        The cost of making the movie isn't my problem. It's no reason to impose IP laws on me. You want the movie, you make and fund it and find a group that wants to fund it.
        
        "Or that you'll get that much in PayPal donations if you ask a bunch of subscribers on YouTube?"
        
        The wrongfully granted monopolies confine our options to youtube.
        
        "Or that anyone would have invested that much if they weren't expecting exclusive distribution/merchandising rights in return? "
        
        Again, what someone else spends on something is not my problem and is no reason to take away my rights just to give someone else exclusive privileges.
        
        For the government to grant exclusive distribution privileges on these communication channels to private corporations is not in the public interest.
        
        "This is how business works."
        
        Ensuring job security for big business is not the governments job. Just because some businesses work this way doesn't mean they should or have to.
        
        "Big companies make the big moves little people cannot. "
        
        By wrongfully denying people the ability to make moves through regulatory capture.
        
        "But I see more trampling from pirates these days than I even do from any of these IP companies. "
        
        That's a lie and you know it.
        
        First of all, copying is not trampling. There is nothing wrong with copying. IP is not about preventing the little guy from 'trampling' over big businesses, it's about promoting the progress. The fact that big businesses have spun it otherwise shows how much big businesses have trampled over everyone else.
        
        Secondly, the ridiculous IP length and infringement damages are more evidence of how much trampling big businesses have done over the little guy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 3:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The cost of making the movie isn't my problem.
        
        ooooooh yea. This guy's got it goin on.
        
        Hire this guy to run your company.
        
        Instant plausible deniability for every complaint your shareholders bring up to you...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The cost of making the movie isn't my problem."
        
        "Hire this guy to run your company."
        
        The cost of making the movie is the problem of company managers, but it's not my problem. IP makes it my problem.
        
        I don't care how much they spent making a movie, I don't want them restricting my rights. No one is forcing them to make a movie and their movie is not important enough to me to allow them to trample over my rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 12:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Or that anyone would have invested that much if they weren't expecting exclusive distribution/merchandising rights in return? "
        
        The government wrongfully grants monopolies over broadcasting spectra and cableco infrastructure use because they know that if monopolies weren't granted, others would use these communication channels to communicate with. Others would use them because such communication is beneficial. It's beneficial partly because it can help independents advertise their content, attract an audience, and use that audience to raise the necessary funds to create more content. If monopoly abolition benefits no one then then no one would use these communication channels without the imposed monopolies and so there would be no reason for the government to grant monopolies. It wrongfully grants monopolies because it knows that these channels would be useful to non-monopolists who wish to use them. For the government to deny us that use just to hand exclusive privileges over to private organizations is wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 4:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah people, the content this guy is addicted to appears out of thin air, don't you get it?
        
        It's like an episode of Bewitched: you snap your fingers, and poof! it magically appears!
        
        "Why can't you understand this? You must be confused. Btw, I'm hungry. You need to go make me a sandwich and bring it here right now. That's how things work nowadays. If you can't adapt to my needs for what I want for free, that's a problem with your business model. This is a situation that must continue forever and never change. It can't change because it is perfect for me.
        
        And your copyright law is too long. 95+ years (buuuurrrrpbelch) makes me a slave to things I don't have to watch but am addicted to. My addiction is your fault, by the way. You horrible person that rips off creators. Oh btw, give me that mediafire link right now, you tool of the man. Why are you so greedy? What? Pay for this? No, they're rich enough already. I deserve everything for free. My life has been hard enou...gh... with... what... SHUT UP MOM, I'M ONLINE. GO AWAY!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hahaha I think we pushed the troll over the edge. I picture him all red-faced and banging his fists on his desk because THESE TECHDIRT IDIOTS JUST DON'T GET IT! I'M SPECIAL GODDAMNIT! I'M SPECIAL I'M SPECIAL I'M SPECIAL AND THEY JUST WON'T BELIEVE ME!
        
        Dude, seriously, YOU are the lunatic fringe here. Your idea of logic is considered fetish porn by robots. Cut the monologues and go back to producing shitty music that nobody even wants to download, or whatever it is you do that you think makes you an artist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I made you a sandwich, a digital sandwich. Where should I email it to? Oh, you can't actually do anything with it for 95+ years, but you won't mind, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Btw, I'm hungry. You need to go make me a sandwich and bring it here right now.
        
        Seems to me that the content industries might be better off if they started listening to people with enough common sense to know how to make their own damn sandwich.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 30 May 2011 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I play WoW. Looks like you need to as well,; you'd fit right in with the entitlement culture there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 29 May 2011 @ 5:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What evidence do you need? Avatar cost ~$450 million including promotion. Do you think you can just go to a bank and take out a personal loan for that amount? Or that you'll get that much in PayPal donations if you ask a bunch of subscribers on YouTube? Or that anyone would have invested that much if they weren't expecting exclusive distribution/merchandising rights in return? "
        
        Ok and...? Avatar was shown in theaters in a special process (3D). Nothing is stopping them or anyone from making a movie like this and making money from it as this one has. Copyright laws enabled or prevented NONE OF THIS. You could abolish copyright law TODAY and tomorrow release a movie that could make hundreds of millions by being presented same as Avatar. Know how I know? Copyright didnt stop Avatar from being "pirated." Avatar made more money than ANY MOVIE IN HISTORY, and was heavily copied. This is all you "rah rah copyright is necessary" shilltards need to know, or really should even care about. Copyright didnt stop Avatar from making over a BILLION dollars worldwide. Copyright doesnt matter if you make a product PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR. Period. Now please go away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 29 May 2011 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The "monopolistic gatekeepers" are pumping billions into financing these productions. I'd love to see someone 'crowdfund' an Avatar-sized film by begging for donations on YouTube, but we both know that's not going to happen."
        
        Stop right there.
        
        Who says it costs billions to make a movie?
        
        And why is it that everyone resorts to Avatar for all example purposes? First, that was the most pirated movie when it came out. But it STILL made a crapton of money.
        
        Second, there are less expensive movies that people can make. Like the Korean director of Oldboy who did it with just a iphone camera. Nothing says that creativity is diminished based on the gatekeepers giving you money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix made over a billion dollars at the box office and yet, according to Hollywood accounting practices, actually lost $150 million.
        
        Hollywood doesn't actually know how to handle money properly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2011 @ 11:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wiggin is clearly a pro - IP organization that benefits from IP laws. I see little reason to take them seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        God forbid you take someone with a viewpoint that differs from your own seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeni (profile), 28 May 2011 @ 7:57pm

52 year young kid
Applause, applause.

I enjoy many of those Disney movies, too. I love the pixar animation, the colorful characters - it's just a nice way to unwind with something light and silly and fun. And I don't have kids or grand kids, but I still watch.

Speaking of which, Beauty and the Beast awaits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]