This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
from the digital-antiques dept
Five Years Ago
There was a whole lot of copyright news this week in 2010. The organizers of a Bulgarian chess tournament were suing over a copyright on chess moves, copyright was holding back research, and a top public school was seeking to copyright and sell its curriculum. Armenia decided it needed incredibly strict copyright laws while the IFPI was complaining that Canada's new copyright laws weren't strict enough, and a Spanish court (not the first) found file-sharing to be legal. One US court smacked down a lawyer for bad faith pursuit of copyright infringement, while another was expressing skepticism over US Copyright Group's lumping together of cases (while many of the targets claimed innocence).
We considered a key question about whether the RIAA's lawsuits had been a "success" while some took a closer look at the association's rise and fall (debunking the idea that it was all about Napster), and Thom Yorke was pinning the lifespan of record labels in the months, not years. Also in need of debunking was the claim that unauthorized handheld games cost the economy tens of billions, not to mention Authors Guild president Scott Turow's freakout about book piracy. Amidst all this, we asked a simple question: is intellectual property immoral?
Ten Years Ago
Five years earlier, press in the UK was happily parroting the recording industry's spin on everything while the country's new creative minister was trying to increase the copyright term for pop songs lest Elvis hit the public domain. Apple's iTunes store was taking on the file-sharing networks (though it wasn't clear to what extent) and people were beginning to notice the curious copyright questions surrounding wedding photography.
The Apple-Intel rumours finally graduated to an official announcement (and some wondered if Apple might sue CNET over the early leak). Journalists at the WSJ got a taste of working without email when their system went down, and AOL finally dipped its toes into the web with a free email service and portal. Firefox was gaining ground in the browser wars, United became the first domestic airline to offer in-flight Wi-Fi, and the FCC bumped up the deadline for TV broadcasts to go digital.
Also this week in 2005, Congress was moving forward with a patent reform bill that was mostly bad with a little good thrown in, while we highlighted an economic analysis of why patents are inefficient in emerging markets.
Fifteen Years Ago
All eyes were on the dot-com world this week in 2000. With a sudden emphasis on actually making money ruining a lot of people's fun, startups were furiously racing to profitability while still advertising on every surface they could find (the latest: shopping bags). But not everything works out — sometimes acquisitions fail, and sometimes dot-coms collapse and are tough to liquidate.
A judge handed down the first ruling that Microsoft must be broken up this week in 2000, while IBM was trying to revive its PC business. CBS, meanwhile, laid off a quarter of its internet staff.The UK government was losing track of its laptops and struggling to understand what meta-tags were.
The first major mobile phone worm appeared in the wild, leading antivirus companies to immediately start peddling protection (not that they ever blow anything out of proportion or anything like that). More and more men were seeking wives online, while at least one internet dater found himself victim of a carjacking scheme.
Thirty-Eight Years Ago
I know many Techdirt readers have fond memories of the Apple II, one of the first truly successful personal computers. Well, it was on June 10th, 1977 that the very first Apple II computers went on sale. The machine's number one hook was its color graphics, which were practically unheard of at its price-point and attracted a lot of consumer attention.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Individuals need pay only tiny sums to enjoy the efforts of perhaps thousands making a $100 million movie, but the system can't work except in a milieu where paying is moral. Techdirt is intent on destroying the complex system, and has nothing to replace it with except vague notions that creators must adapt to unlimited numbers of freeloaders by finding a "new business model". The 100-year history of mass entertainment industries isn't enough to show Masnick and fanboys that there is NO workable alternative. -- And WHY should there be? The current one works!
Techdirters assert that copyright isn't needed at all because in moral terms they are THIEVES. -- And that cannot be defined away! Producers and creators have ALL the moral and copy rights because do all the investing and work.
Also, Techdirters point to new gadgets as if mechanical copying is the essential, rather than human intellectual faculties that copyright recognizes and protects. -- In short, Techdirt is ANTI-intellectual in all ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Individuals need pay only tiny sums to enjoy the efforts of perhaps thousands making a $100 million movie, but the system can't work except in a milieu where paying is moral. Techdirt is intent on destroying the complex system, and has nothing to replace it with except vague notions that creators must adapt to unlimited numbers of freeloaders by finding a "new business model". The 100-year history of mass entertainment industries isn't enough to show Masnick and fanboys that there is NO workable alternative. -- And WHY should there be? The current one works!
Techdirters assert that copyright isn't needed at all because in moral terms they are THIEVES. -- And that cannot be defined away! Producers and creators have ALL the moral and copy rights because do all the investing and work.
Also, Techdirters point to new gadgets as if mechanical copying is the essential, rather than human intellectual faculties that copyright recognizes and protects. -- In short, Techdirt is ANTI-intellectual in all ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Amongst other things, I would say Techdirt is attempting to promote a re-thinking of the copyright system, both in the way that it's currently implemented and in the ways that pro-copyright movements are attempting to change it.
You're attempting to have it both ways. All take with no give, and that, frankly, isn't the deal.
Copyright has it's place. It's a kind of -limited- monopoly to provide creative incentive for artists and producers. It's also a legal stick to stop materials being ripped off before they're able to realise some kind of profit from their efforts.
Both of these are fine -to an extent- but I'd argue that the way it's currently being used is not for the public benefit.
The other side of the copyright deal is that when the copyright term expires on something that that thing becomes available to the Public Domain for re-purposing. This is not happening to any great extent for a couple of reasons - lopsided lobbying ability, immortal companies v. mortal public, and crappy un-democratic trade agreements come immediately to mind.
The public domain clearly does provide great benefit for artists to draw upon - see Disney's extensive use. What we want is current content providers to realise a healthy return for their efforts, and then allow their material to be similarly drawn on for other derivative works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I much prefer original ideas.
Also don't forget that it is only in America is copyright about the progress of science and arts. And that America is largely out of step with the rest of the world with copyright.
I live in a country with life + 50, and whats in the public domain here is amazing but with the rest of the world extending their terms and TPP on it's way, there is nothing we can do with it as when it crosses the ocean it becomes illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Culture is derivative - recombining stuff we have seen before in different ways (playing it straight, subverting, whatever) to form a new whole. TVTropes provides superb examples of this kind of thing.
This re-working of ideas isn't just limited to tv. As you can see on that site, it also applies to other creative pursuits - film, literature for example. Whether we know it or not, these parts make up the vocabularies we work with, allowing us to explain things at a stroke eg. "Avatar is Pocahontas In Space".
We're all building on the shoulders of giants. It's akin to the argument that nobody makes a successful business in a vacuum - society provided the conditions that allowed your business to flourish as a result of your hard work. In this case, it's not roads or bridges but rather ideas, myth and legend.
Consider Bram Stoker's "Dracula". The copyright on that has been allowed to expire. How much has been generated off the idea [perhaps an indirect sample] as a result? I can't imagine it's been bad for the sales of the source work. If nothing else, it's helped keep that work in the consciousness.
All the current terms are doing is embargoing ideas that make up our culture from elaboration. In and of itself, it's not encouraging creators to create more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I completely agree. Tried covering it with my "recombining stuff we have seen before in different ways", yours is much more succinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Define the boundaries of derivative works, and should that include new tales about known characters in a known universe? Setting a tale in a rich and well known universe provides a lot of background to the experience. Their are many untold tales in the Lord of The Rings universe for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
With this sort of attitude it's probably best that copyright is as it is, lest the theatres fill up with fantasy fan films.
There are no untold stories in The Rings the dude is dead. But if you must it's public domain here in 8 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
ALL creativity is based on things that were created before. Sometimes more directly and overtly than others, that's all. And there's nothing wrong with that, or less valuable about it. Why should there be? I'd be interested to know if you can make an actual case for why derivative work is worthless, rather than just brushing it off as "fantasy fan films" as though everyone will agree that such things are, without exception, bad art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Like they say, 'there's a world of stories out there', if you really want to make a film or write a novel then start with one of your own.
This is where 'laziness' come in - if I start with a story of my own I have to create and visualise all the characters and locations and situations before I get to work on the plot and dialogue. If I set my story in the world of L.O.T.R then the majority of the work is done already.
'Creativity' is based on things that have 'happened' before - there is always some truth in a great story. Derivative, formulaic shite is based on things that were created before.
As for music - yes, a lot of it is very derivative, especially in the world of the Top 40 - where it almost has to be. But if you are interested and can be bothered searching it out there are still original voices in music today. They are harder to find, and by their very nature they are not to everyones tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I've also read the odd bit of fan fiction, and it's pretty shit on the whole.
Harry Potter with sex, snore! L.O.T.R with sex, snore. Buffy the vampire slayer at age 40 (probably having sex) snore!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
See, you're still doing it: implying that the only things we must be talking about are silly oversexed fanfics.
Go see the incredibly moving and mindblowing Mr. Burns: A Post-Electric Play. Go watch Cracked's utterly hilarious (if you are a fan of the shows) mashup of Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Go read Timothy Findlay's Headhunter or watch Apocalypse Now, both based on Heart of Darkness. Go see a production of The Beggar's Opera.
Expand your damn mind and stop assuming this is all about trivial slashfic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I suspect that this problem has a lot to do with the attacks on Spotify, file sharing sites and search engines, attack the bottlenecks to shut down the competition, because you cannot shutdown the individuals one by one..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
It's cool that there is an argument for shorter copyright length here - the situation in the US is ridiculous. But the gut feeling I get when derivative works get mentioned here is that what people really want is stuff out of copyright so that it's legally free to download and share. This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway ( you can still download it without threat tho). And then someone calls me a shill for the studios trying to disrupt anarchy, FFS, nice one dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway
Not sure what you mean here. That discussion started not as something people are accepting -- but as yet another thing that needs to be fixed about copyright law. You're focusing solely on the question of reducing copyright terms and we're talking about so much more than that - such as strengthening the sanctity of the public domain, clamping down on attempts to effectively re-copyright it, drastically strengthening fair use and transformative work defences when it comes to stuff that *isn't* in the public domain, adopting more compulsory licensing schemes to remove most/all issues of "permission" from copyright, and still more beyond...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What they are trying to disrupt are the tools that allow individuals to find a wider audience. They cannot stop people creating, but they can attack the means by which they can get widespread distribution. The threat to their business model is not people creating new works, but rather the ability of those people to reach an audience without any gatekeepers to dam up the flood of new works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Your ENTIRE argument is based on the notion that any creativity that is derived from a public domain work is inherently worthless and low-quality. Sounds like a taste judgement to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
You sound unnecessarily angry, and a little irrational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That's an amusing notion considering Leigh has been nothing but cordial and you're being consistently rude and insulting. You do sound like a grumpy old man whinging about how things have changed for the worse because you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That's supposed to be an insult compared to your "fuck you buddy" follow-up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Aight, gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Is music and songs written in an existing style a derivative work?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
How much does Disney owe the original authors for its retelling of all those fairy_tales?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
And remember there's nothing stopping you from making your own version of any of those stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Your own words indicate that in your opinion the only way to be considered as "creative" is to ignore, forget and disregard everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Did you not look at the link that was posted above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I'm not surprised to see out_of_the_blue's fanboy rise to the defense of someone who approves of using "fuck you buddy" as a rebuff, yet complains about usage of the word "moron".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
You are seriously arguing that no one at a large company like Disney has ever threatened someone making their own version of a public domain work that they themselves had used to make something?
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
As for copyright, titles, as is the case with trademark law, are not protectible, so creating an original work with the same title is generally not actionable under copyright law. Of course, the actual work itself could prove problematic, but even then ordinary rules concerning infringement pertain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
So yeah, it does happen.
http://www.newyorktrademarkattorneyblog.com/2014/02/10/disney-prevails-trademark-lawsuit-involving-m ovie-frozen/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
There's also Disney and Warner Bros. fighting over Wizard of Oz trademarks, with the latter especially aggressively opposing things at the trademark office (which, again I realize, is about opposing new trademarks, not trying to block creation of the works).
While your very narrowly defined statement -- that there are no instances of someone blocking a movie based entirely on a trademark claim -- appears true, the extrapolation that as such trademark represents no threat and creators don't have anything to worry about (or to spend money and time preparing for / thinking about / defending against) is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That first story starts by asking the question " which parts of The Wizard of Oz movie were public domain, and which were still under copyright".
The answer is of course nearly all of it, but not the text it was based on.
And it's a question that didn't need asking, at least not framed that way.
But it highlights the point I was trying to make, that people here seem to want works in the public domain so they can plunder them. Works that are in the public domain still cause problems if they are linked to a work that isn't.
Maybe I should re-frame my question...
What do you want to do with public domain works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Or, you know, failing that take the ideas, characters, and worlds in the works and updating them for a more modern audience, incorporating bits and pieces in other works if not taking the entire thing and giving it some sort of twist that completely changes the underlying story or message it was originally meant to convey, even if most of the rest of the work remains the same.
And all of this without having a massive threat of potential legal action against me hanging over my head should someone object to my actions(whether it's ruled ultimately to be legitimate or not doesn't matter, I'd have to pay out either way), causing a massive chilling in creation 'just in case'.
Either works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Enjoy them, remix them, distribute them, derive things from them, mash them together, update them, present them in new lights, produce the next Apocalypse Now. Y'know, the stuff you're allowed to do with public domain works. Why, what do you want to do with them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Well, go right ahead and announce you're making an animated movie of Kipling's Jungle Book stories, and watch how fast you get a call from Disney's lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
It's like I said above, you've got to forget everything you've seen and start new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
If you honestly believe there's no chance that any of those things would rouse Disney, then you don't know Disney...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What about, say, once upon a time - the Tv show. They manage to use a lot of the same characters and texts as disney (and other studios) And I haven't heard of the lawyers shutting that down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That show airs on Disney-ABC and is backed by Disney. The most recent episode introduced Elsa from Frozen, after a bunch of negotiations and a greenlight from Disney.
So uh yeah, want to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
If you think that 100 years of something is proof that it's the only way things can be, you are a moron. But, we already knew that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not as though they want a balanced discussion or anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's especially funny is the guy who made the "defensive and petty" comment hangs out here trolling the site, constantly making defensive and petty insults on anyone who dares to question his beloved copyright or patent system (oh, and the surveillance state, too).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the surveillance state, my comments have generally been limited to stating my personal opinion that your acquaintance Wyden acted in what I happen to believe was a totally cowardly manner. This, of course, hs absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the various statutory provisions under which surveillance has been conducted.
It would be nice to just once read a rejoinder that ddresses what was actually said and sans expletive-laden personal attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact is, you're here to defend anyone who disagrees with the site, especially if they're being rude and harassing, because that's what tickles your fancy. This isn't even the first time you've tried to rise to their defense, and it's in the most obnoxious way possible. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
No, it makes me look exhausted and frustrated. Which is exactly the effect Blue there has on everyone in these comments.
Personally, I don't care much when people involve name-calling in their debate. I do, however, think it's pretty telling when someone tries to focus on that as the way to invalidate someone's argument: it just goes to show that you don't have any real argument of your own, and are hoping that you can use the "hey you called him a name!" cheat code to get out of responding or looking moronic yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Observing the likes of the anti-public domain campaigners here, it's almost comforting to see some things just haven't changed. Intellectual property must give people the brainpower of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will the Real Thieves Please Stand Up?
It does. It's the word "property" that does it. It's like gold fever, but for imaginary property.
Is intellectual property immoral?
Yes it is. First of all, it misrepresents the Constitutional limits of a temporary monopoly privilege as a thing that can be owned, and should therefore be owned permanently like actual property.
Secondly, it creates a breed of froth-mouthed adherents who not only disregard everyone else's rights, they insist on getting laws passed that actively infringe upon them.
Thirdly, it facilitates theft from the public domain via expansion, locking up works that were formerly free to use.
Fourthly, it robs us of our cultural heritage by letting unprofitable works on celluloid film decay instead of enabling them to be copied and saved for future generations.
Seriously, don't get me started on how utterly offensive and morally bankrupt "intellectual property" is. You can call it intellectual output if you will but if I see anyone calling it property or describing the experience thereof as "consuming," believe me I will put you straight. Let's not be using words from the real thieves' lexicon.
/End rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will the Real Thieves Please Stand Up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]