There's some history that copyright came from religions, to control access to scripture and especially scripture that diverged church's official versions. Government and religion were not so partitioned at the time of the first copyright laws, and preaching heresy or blasphemy have had lethal consequences since as long as history has existed. Shall we count those, even when they were merely spoken and not published by the speakers?
Before folks rail against the concept of copyright, they should look at the history of copyright in the US. Once upon a time, an author would have to register his work in each state of the US, otherwise a book written and published in Connecticut could (and would) be reprinted elsewhere with zero compensation to the author. Eventually, the federal government established a national copyright which was for a relatively short amount of time, 14 years with the option to renew for another 14 years. Quite reasonable in my opinion as it allowed the author to profit from his work but within 28 years the work would enter into the public domain. The current copyright length is beyond broken and is an abomination, thanks in large part to the House of Mouse. The fact that HoM refuses to pay royalties for material under copyright does not surprise me in the least. Just another case of rules for thee and not for me. I hope ADF lives long enough to collect his money and that HoM burns to the ground.
absolutely. if what they claim stands, then anyone can stop paying royalties by creating a dumping ground legal entity, move the requirement to pay there but keep the ip to sell. then let the dumping ground legal entity fold. if this stands content creators everywhere, even overseas in countries where copyright treaties with the usa exist, are f**ked. i'd like to think this is so crazy it cant stand, but ive learnt recently that anything is unfortunately possible in the usa.
Based on what Disney is saying it would be slightly easier than that. Publisher A sells their business to Publisher B then Publisher B sells that business back to Publisher A. Finally Publisher A sells the portion of their business that was originally Publisher B's back to them. Now both companies are free to sell their catalogue of books without paying any royalties to anyone.
This is essentially what chemical companies and asbestos manufacturers used to do, transfer all their toxic (literally) liabilities to a shell company (Haiti was a favorite home for them) and then spin it off and let it go bankrupt. That's why the US government is paying asbestos liability claims rather than Halliburton (which originally bought Dresser Industries along with its asbestos business). That tactic was thought to be dead in the US, but apparently Disney has managed to revive it.
Once upon a time, an author would have to register his work in each state of the US, otherwise a book written and published in Connecticut could (and would) be reprinted elsewhere with zero compensation to the author.
Yes, that's how things worked for about seven or eight years. Unless you want to laugh at how bad the original US government under the Articles of Confederation were, it's a fairly pointless example for any purpose. (Also Delaware, IIRC, never bothered to have a state copyright law at all before the 1790 Act)
BUT...DISNEY has had the copyright law extended by Congress NUMEROUS times to protect its OWN Copyrights on Disney properties.
Evidently, it wants CopyRIGHTS to extend only to itself. Copyright, last time I heard was well beyond 75Years now.
If you wanna dance to this tune, PAY THE AUTHORS what they're owed...The House of Mouse does not get to buy its own laws then refuse to obey them.
Somebody would take your car if there wasn't any cops to intervene. And your food. Government enforcing the law that I can't take your stuff doesn't mean that government invented the stuff.
You give government far too much credit. Al Gore may have invented the internet, but government did not invent clothes and food and houses - protecting your stuff doesn't mean they invented it.
For some reason, if you spent a week in an preschool you will hear the cry "he copied me!". Always in an upset tone. The fact is, by age three (if not before) we express an indignation about our artwork being copied. There is an apparently innate sense that having someone else copy your creative work is injustice. In some way, we sense ownership of creative works - and that innate understanding is apparent by the time we learn to say the word "mine".
Recognizing that, knowing that the fruits of your labors inherently belong to you, I can then present you with the GPL or a BAD license or whatever and try to convince you to open up your work. I can show you open-source work I've done and talk about the benefits. Much as I posted the other day encouraging people to donate their money to CURE International and similar organizations.
What I can't rightfully do is snatch your money from you and send it to CURE. In the same way, I can't rightfully take the fruits of your creative labors, your artwork, because we've known from age three that "he's copying me!" isn't an expression of joy - it's decrying an injustice that we've all understood innately for our entire lives.
Yet, it has always been the publishers (stationers way back) who have pushed for copyright, so they can pay an artist a pittance and then profit for as long as possible. About the beginning of the 18th century they discovered the best argument was that "it was for the artists" as they pushed for infinite copyright on the works that they controlled. Today, in this article, we see the same thing, the publisher ripping off the artist and people like you who think it is for the artist. Today there are still a co
The Macys stores in Seattle did a hilarious thing a few years ago, they displayed Ivanka Trump knockoff clothes on the rack next to the (IIRC) Donna Karan originals. Identical right down to the stitching on the hem.
She owned the company and put her name on stuff under the absurd assumption that it increased the saleability, she couldn't design her way out of her office door.
Recognizing that, knowing that the fruits of your labors inherently belong to you
Bullshit. But kudos for your novel pro-copyright argument based on selfish preschoolers. That's a new one to me.
Property -- all property -- is either what you can personally defend from others, what you can convince other people to not take, and what you and other people banding together can defend from others.
Why can't I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? Because if I do it on my own, I'm just some nut. But when it really is me and my army and we can march in and stop anyone from disputing my claim to be abl
make copyright too onerous and we're better off with less of it.
As numerous people who upload videos / stream to the internet are finding out, with the music industry's aggressive stance on enforcing copyright with the blunt tool of the DMCA (in the latest twist, they're even enforcing copyright on sound effects).
Sure, the artists / people who recorded the effects should be credited and probably have some form of compensation, but when the law likely regards someone streaming to an audience of a few dozen the same way as a television station broadcasting to millions,
> Property -- all property -- is either what you can personally defend from others, what you can convince other people to not take, and what you and other people banding together can defend from others.
The old "might makes right" argument, eh?
Well, I guess it's a good thing people don't depend on you to make good arguments, based on justice, or based on the law.
> I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Oh shit. Yeah you'll definitely never be my lawyer, since "might makes rig
The modern core theory of property law is that it's utilitarian (i.e. what people agree to because it's in their own interest) but underlying that is the much messier bit about who the people making the agreements are.
It would be nice if there were a more uplifting basis for it, but we should not delude ourselves as to how it originated and what the foundations rest on. But by all means, show me a counter example of a place where ownership doesn't work like that. It won't be America; we got our land by wipi
There is an apparently innate sense that having someone else copy your creative work is injustice. In some way, we sense ownership of creative works - and that innate understanding is apparent by the time we learn to say the word "mine".
Someone else making a work similar to yours doesn't devalue it unless theirs is superior to yours. It's only when it is identical that it represents anything like "theft". And if theirs is superior, then suck it up, they're better than you are.
[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: (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird that you blame "capitalism" for an unnatural right to imaginary property invented by the government.
It wasn't invented by the government, it is just enforced by it (after sufficient lobbying efforts)
Re:Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:0, Flamebait)
It wasn't invented by the government, it is just enforced by it
Are you seriously claiming that, in the absence of government, authors would have no problem being compensated for their work?
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks exist only because governments say that they do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you seriously claiming that, in the absence of government, authors would have no problem being compensated for their work?
No he said the opposite: that governments enforce copyright so that authors get paid.
Re: (Score:3)
There's some history that copyright came from religions, to control access to scripture and especially scripture that diverged church's official versions. Government and religion were not so partitioned at the time of the first copyright laws, and preaching heresy or blasphemy have had lethal consequences since as long as history has existed. Shall we count those, even when they were merely spoken and not published by the speakers?
Re:Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before folks rail against the concept of copyright, they should look at the history of copyright in the US. Once upon a time, an author would have to register his work in each state of the US, otherwise a book written and published in Connecticut could (and would) be reprinted elsewhere with zero compensation to the author. Eventually, the federal government established a national copyright which was for a relatively short amount of time, 14 years with the option to renew for another 14 years. Quite reasonable in my opinion as it allowed the author to profit from his work but within 28 years the work would enter into the public domain. The current copyright length is beyond broken and is an abomination, thanks in large part to the House of Mouse. The fact that HoM refuses to pay royalties for material under copyright does not surprise me in the least. Just another case of rules for thee and not for me. I hope ADF lives long enough to collect his money and that HoM burns to the ground.
Re: Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what Disney is saying it would be slightly easier than that. Publisher A sells their business to Publisher B then Publisher B sells that business back to Publisher A. Finally Publisher A sells the portion of their business that was originally Publisher B's back to them. Now both companies are free to sell their catalogue of books without paying any royalties to anyone.
In hindsight, your way is probably easier. 8^)
Re: Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:4, Informative)
This is essentially what chemical companies and asbestos manufacturers used to do, transfer all their toxic (literally) liabilities to a shell company (Haiti was a favorite home for them) and then spin it off and let it go bankrupt. That's why the US government is paying asbestos liability claims rather than Halliburton (which originally bought Dresser Industries along with its asbestos business). That tactic was thought to be dead in the US, but apparently Disney has managed to revive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, an author would have to register his work in each state of the US, otherwise a book written and published in Connecticut could (and would) be reprinted elsewhere with zero compensation to the author.
Yes, that's how things worked for about seven or eight years. Unless you want to laugh at how bad the original US government under the Articles of Confederation were, it's a fairly pointless example for any purpose. (Also Delaware, IIRC, never bothered to have a state copyright law at all before the 1790 Act)
Re: (Score:1)
Government invented cars and food? (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody would take your car if there wasn't any cops to intervene. And your food. Government enforcing the law that I can't take your stuff doesn't mean that government invented the stuff.
You give government far too much credit. Al Gore may have invented the internet, but government did not invent clothes and food and houses - protecting your stuff doesn't mean they invented it.
For some reason, if you spent a week in an preschool you will hear the cry "he copied me!". Always in an upset tone. The fact is, by age three (if not before) we express an indignation about our artwork being copied. There is an apparently innate sense that having someone else copy your creative work is injustice. In some way, we sense ownership of creative works - and that innate understanding is apparent by the time we learn to say the word "mine".
Recognizing that, knowing that the fruits of your labors inherently belong to you, I can then present you with the GPL or a BAD license or whatever and try to convince you to open up your work. I can show you open-source work I've done and talk about the benefits. Much as I posted the other day encouraging people to donate their money to CURE International and similar organizations.
What I can't rightfully do is snatch your money from you and send it to CURE. In the same way, I can't rightfully take the fruits of your creative labors, your artwork, because we've known from age three that "he's copying me!" isn't an expression of joy - it's decrying an injustice that we've all understood innately for our entire lives.
Re:Government invented cars and food? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't rightfully take the fruits of your creative labors...
No, you can't, but Disney can. And it has in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't rightfully take the fruits of your creative labors...
No, you can't, but Disney can. And it has in this case.
In this case? That's what they do. That's how disney started. How it did, does and will continue to operate and it's doing very well for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet, it has always been the publishers (stationers way back) who have pushed for copyright, so they can pay an artist a pittance and then profit for as long as possible. About the beginning of the 18th century they discovered the best argument was that "it was for the artists" as they pushed for infinite copyright on the works that they controlled. Today, in this article, we see the same thing, the publisher ripping off the artist and people like you who think it is for the artist.
Today there are still a co
Re: (Score:3)
such as the fashion industry
The Macys stores in Seattle did a hilarious thing a few years ago, they displayed Ivanka Trump knockoff clothes on the rack next to the (IIRC) Donna Karan originals. Identical right down to the stitching on the hem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's still trademark law, so I doubt they had the same label. Besides, does Ivanka design clothes or just lend her name?
Re: (Score:2)
She owned the company and put her name on stuff under the absurd assumption that it increased the saleability, she couldn't design her way out of her office door.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems good, those who want to support her can pay too much for hers or pay a realistic price for basically the same thing.
Re: Government invented cars and food? (Score:2)
What if the brand was bought out? Seems perfectly legal to me in that case: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Recognizing that, knowing that the fruits of your labors inherently belong to you
Bullshit. But kudos for your novel pro-copyright argument based on selfish preschoolers. That's a new one to me.
Property -- all property -- is either what you can personally defend from others, what you can convince other people to not take, and what you and other people banding together can defend from others.
Why can't I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? Because if I do it on my own, I'm just some nut. But when it really is me and my army and we can march in and stop anyone from disputing my claim to be abl
Re: (Score:1)
make copyright too onerous and we're better off with less of it.
As numerous people who upload videos / stream to the internet are finding out, with the music industry's aggressive stance on enforcing copyright with the blunt tool of the DMCA (in the latest twist, they're even enforcing copyright on sound effects).
Sure, the artists / people who recorded the effects should be credited and probably have some form of compensation, but when the law likely regards someone streaming to an audience of a few dozen the same way as a television station broadcasting to millions,
Half a million Creative Commons sound effects (Score:2)
> when the law likely regards someone streaming to an audience of a few dozen the same way as a television station broadcasting to millions,
It doesn't.
> Likely requiring an outlay of several thousand currency units for a license
Here are half a million Creative Commons licensed sound effects. You can find a few million more by spending 5-10 minutes on Google.
https://freesound.org/ [freesound.org]
Re: (Score:2)
+1 informative, thanks for the link.
Re: (Score:2)
> Property -- all property -- is either what you can personally defend from others, what you can convince other people to not take, and what you and other people banding together can defend from others.
The old "might makes right" argument, eh?
Well, I guess it's a good thing people don't depend on you to make good arguments, based on justice, or based on the law.
> I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Oh shit. Yeah you'll definitely never be my lawyer, since "might makes rig
Re: (Score:2)
The old "might makes right" argument, eh?
The modern core theory of property law is that it's utilitarian (i.e. what people agree to because it's in their own interest) but underlying that is the much messier bit about who the people making the agreements are.
It would be nice if there were a more uplifting basis for it, but we should not delude ourselves as to how it originated and what the foundations rest on. But by all means, show me a counter example of a place where ownership doesn't work like that. It won't be America; we got our land by wipi
Re: (Score:2)
There is an apparently innate sense that having someone else copy your creative work is injustice. In some way, we sense ownership of creative works - and that innate understanding is apparent by the time we learn to say the word "mine".
Someone else making a work similar to yours doesn't devalue it unless theirs is superior to yours. It's only when it is identical that it represents anything like "theft". And if theirs is superior, then suck it up, they're better than you are.