>So, just to be clear, you are claiming that the author of the book is the filthy capitalist, and Disney is his victim?
Sure he is. And the corollary is that you should be able to freely copy any of Disney's works. You can argue one side or the other, but don't imply he's being inconsistent.
Disney wants to have their cake, and eat it, too. Disney is pure evil. Disney built their empire based on expired copyrights for works by authors such as the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, and Mark Twain. But, since, they've pushed for longer copyright terms to protect their own creative works.
Copyright is granted (in the words of the US Constitution)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
, and extending terms after a work has been created doesn't do that. There's no public good for extending the copyright term of existing works. And there's no public good for anything by the Beatles, or the early Star Wars movies, to still be under copyright. The original 14+14 year term was completely sufficient.
And when the monarchies lost power in the 17th century (and copying became easy), copyright went away. The stationers who had the Royally granted monopoly were upset and pushed the government, in the form of Parliament to give them back their monopoly. Eventually they bribed the elected part of government to do just that and then the unelected part of government pushed back, with a 14+14 year limit on the monopoly as well as the publishers having to put the works in a famous library, register the work and such, as they considered that art should eventually benefit everyone as almost all art is built on the shoulders of those who went before. The idea of those unelected was to advance learning by granting a limited monopoly on the understanding that works would enter the public domain after a limited time. The writers of the American Constitution thought it was a good idea and incorporated it into the Constitution for "the sciences and arts", another way to say advanced learning and since the publishers have been pushing to make that limited term as long and broad as possible, often by paying for people to get elected. So current copyright is mainly a result of capitalists using their capital to influence lawmakers.
Is this supposed to make sense? It doesn't. I think you've been in your alt-right echo chamber too long and forgot how to talk to normal people. What laws are supposedly "anti-capitalist?"
Then why do actual capitalists advocate for such laws? Because capitalists hate the free market. They try to capture, corner and control any "free market" they find. And they love to use government as a tool to achieve their ends. Which is why we, the people must remain vigilant and ensure that government works for us, not the few owners of large corporations.
it sounds like you have a very naïve fantasy about who "capitalists" actually are, and what they do. They are not some generic "good guys" who ma
[A computer is] like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy.
-- Joseph Campbell
Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:5, Insightful)
The end result of unfettered capitalism is wealthy organisations eating everything and everyone else.
The power of wealth must be reigned in.
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
Weird that you blame "capitalism" for an unnatural right to imaginary property invented by the government.
Re:Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:3)
Weird that it was capitalists who used government as a tool to create imaginary property for themselves. Oh wait, no. That's what capitalists do.
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to be clear, you are claiming that the author of the book is the filthy capitalist, and Disney is his victim?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Aaron Swaqrtz, yes. "All information should be free", so it's OK to steal copies by the Petabyte.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting Alan Dean Foster travelled back in time to the founding of our country, and helped set up copyright law?
Re:Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure he is. And the corollary is that you should be able to freely copy any of Disney's works. You can argue one side or the other, but don't imply he's being inconsistent.
Disney wants to have their cake, and eat it, too. Disney is pure evil. Disney built their empire based on expired copyrights for works by authors such as the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, and Mark Twain. But, since, they've pushed for longer copyright terms to protect their own creative works.
Copyright is granted (in the words of the US Constitution)
, and extending terms after a work has been created doesn't do that. There's no public good for extending the copyright term of existing works. And there's no public good for anything by the Beatles, or the early Star Wars movies, to still be under copyright. The original 14+14 year term was completely sufficient.
Disney is stealing our culture from us. Disney--.
Re:Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:4)
And when the monarchies lost power in the 17th century (and copying became easy), copyright went away. The stationers who had the Royally granted monopoly were upset and pushed the government, in the form of Parliament to give them back their monopoly. Eventually they bribed the elected part of government to do just that and then the unelected part of government pushed back, with a 14+14 year limit on the monopoly as well as the publishers having to put the works in a famous library, register the work and such, as they considered that art should eventually benefit everyone as almost all art is built on the shoulders of those who went before. The idea of those unelected was to advance learning by granting a limited monopoly on the understanding that works would enter the public domain after a limited time.
The writers of the American Constitution thought it was a good idea and incorporated it into the Constitution for "the sciences and arts", another way to say advanced learning and since the publishers have been pushing to make that limited term as long and broad as possible, often by paying for people to get elected.
So current copyright is mainly a result of capitalists using their capital to influence lawmakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this supposed to make sense? It doesn't. I think you've been in your alt-right echo chamber too long and forgot how to talk to normal people. What laws are supposedly "anti-capitalist?"
Re: (Score:2)
> What laws are supposedly "anti-capitalist?"
Those granting private monopolies, for one.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do actual capitalists advocate for such laws? Because capitalists hate the free market. They try to capture, corner and control any "free market" they find. And they love to use government as a tool to achieve their ends. Which is why we, the people must remain vigilant and ensure that government works for us, not the few owners of large corporations.
it sounds like you have a very naïve fantasy about who "capitalists" actually are, and what they do. They are not some generic "good guys" who ma