While Everyone Was Focused On Crypto Scams, Walmart Was Out Here Actively Helping Scammers
Fifth Circuit Tells Cops ‘Hispanic On A Bike’ Isn’t Enough Suspicion To Justify Stops Of Hispanics On Bikes

Why Is Media Lamenting Disney’s ‘Loss’ Of Copyright Instead Of Celebrating The Public Domain?

Culture

from the mouse-party dept

Mon, Jul 25th 2022 03:26pm -

There’s something odd going on in media reporting on the expiration of Disney’s copyright on the initial version of Mickey Mouse that is set to occur in 2024. Given the subject matter, we’ve talked Mickey Mouse quite a bit on this site, specifically noting the “coincidence” of copyright term extensions that have occurred roughly each and every time Disney’s copyright was about to expire. The context in this throat-clearing is, essentially: Mickey Mouse should have been in the public domain years and years ago but isn’t because Congress keeps extending the term so it never occurs.

Well, while some are theorizing that the odd spate of media posts we’re suddenly seeing now about how Mickey’s earliest versions are going into the public domain soon is part of some campaign to extend copyright terms again, there is actually very little evidence for that. But what I found interesting about these stories is how many of them were framed: lamenting the loss of Disney’s copyright instead of celebrating the addition to the public domain. Here is one example, headlined Disney Might Lose Copyright To Mickey Mouse As First Version Of Iconic Character Reached Public Domain In 2024.

First, that headline sucks. Might lose? Will lose, actually, unless Congress quickly extends copyright terms. Second, get a sense of how this is all framed with this quote as an example.

But sadly, the first version is going to enter the public domain very soon. The silver lining is that Disney might still hold on to some rights if they can make a trademark of the first Mickey Mouse version, states a report by Deutsche Welle.

What fresh bullshit is this? Disney got sweetheart deals in the form of extensions in copyright terms over and over again, and now we’re “sad” that those sweetheart deals have run their course? And why is it a silver lining that Disney still gets to control subsequent versions of the character for the extended absurd lengths of time? What is with all the hand-wringing here?

This isn’t the only terrible framing at work here. Other outlets are including input from folks reminding people that Disney still has a trademark on Mickey Mouse and how that will allow the company to still bully and control others’ use of the character.

Meanwhile, Daniel Mayeda from the UCLA School of Law told The Guardian: “You can use the Mickey Mouse character as it was originally created to create your own Mickey Mouse stories or stories with this character. But if you do so in a way that people will think of Disney—which is kind of likely because they have been investing in this character for so long—then in theory, Disney could say you violated my trademark.”

No! That isn’t how this works. Trademark law was not intended as an end-around an expiring copyright term. No amount of investment in Mickey Mouse allows Disney to control the fact that the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse will be in the public domain. And suggesting otherwise is irresponsible. I have no doubt that Disney will try to do this, but it should fail on the merits.

And the larger point is that all of this worry and dismay over one version of Mickey finally(!) entering into the public domain is absurd. Why is the framing in these posts all about Disney “losing” something rather than the public, literally all of us, gaining something. That’s the entire damned point of the public domain and it seems there are a lot of media outlets out there that can’t grasp the concept.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: disney

165 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Is Media Lamenting Disney’s ‘Loss’ Of Copyright Instead Of Celebrating The Public Domain?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
165 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Copyright is for companies, not the public!'

The US spent so long with nothing entering the public domain and thereby fulfilling the ‘deal’ that is copyright that the idea that a major company might ‘lose’ control over something is seen as some heinous outcome rather than what should have happened decades ago.

Or, to put it another way, copyright has been erroneously framed as only being for copyright owners(who may or may not be creators) so often and for so long that the idea that the actual beneficiary is supposed to be the public has gotten lost to time, such that the idea that the public might benefit at the cost of the copyright owner is seen as a bug rather than a feature.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bergman (profile) says:

Re:

I’ve run into that attitude a fair amount as an on-again, off-again amateur photographer.

When I take a photo, the copyright on that photo is mine. But if I do an especially good job on it, I won’t be able to get it printed at any professional copy or print shop that doesn’t offer self-service machines, because the professional shops will all inform me that they cannot print copyrighted material without permission from the rights holder – and nothing I say will convince them that I am the rights holder to my own work.

Even a copy of a copyright registration won’t sway them.

Because copyrights are for companies, not individuals, apparently.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think, sadly, it has more to do with the fear of life shattering damages if you screw up.

People remember the headlines about Tiffany suing eBay for all the money in the world over IP infringement, not so much the case being thrown out.

They see the “projected” damages (much like how the media reports on the bad guy facing 20000000 years in jail, ignoring that guidelines are just that) and if you worried about having to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars for printing 1 photo that someone else might own… you end up scared and pissing off a potential customer is worth covering your ass.

Just look at the lawsuits against the ISPs where they are seeking billions in damages but there is 1 tiny little thing no one wants to explain… just because a company claims they saw someone do it, how does that become factual evidence to make a legal decision as its never been tested or validated?
The RIAA can claim that a user is a ‘repeat infringer’ but ‘because we said so’ isn’t really evidence of anything.

QAnon freaks call politicians and call them pedophiles, if they do it enough times we should just throw them in jail?

Raziel says:

Re:

…such that the idea that the public might benefit at the cost of the copyright owner is seen as a bug rather than a feature.

Actually, it’s neither a bug or a feature since that’s not what’s actually happening. What does happen is the copyright holder hashad their time, and it’s now time for the public to take ownership of the content.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
The Bananananaman says:

You’re sounding like a monstrous Republican with your anti-Disney rhetoric and support of the public domain. “Sweetheart deals” aren’t a thing. It’s just a stupid term made up by monstrous Republicans. If anything, Mickey Mouse and all other forms of media should be protected FROM the public domain! The more stuff that enters the public domain, the more people will be lazy and just copy stuff from it rather than create all new stuff.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Zonker says:

Re:

If anything, Mickey Mouse and all other forms of media should be protected FROM the public domain! The more stuff that enters the public domain, the more people will be lazy and just copy stuff from it rather than create all new stuff.

Yeah, just check out all the “original” content from Disney over it’s long history (selection of ~50 items from the public domain):

Adventures of Huck Finn (1993) based on Mark Twain’s book (1885)
Tom and Huck (1995) based on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain (1876)
Aladdin (1992) from a folk tale in One Thousand and One Nights (1706)
Alice in Wonderland (1951) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865)
Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865)
Around the World in 80 Days (2004) based on Jules Verne’s book (1873)
Atlantis (2001) from the Legend of Atlantis (Socratic Dialogues “Timaeus” & “Critias” by Plato ~360 BC.)
Beauty and the Beast (1991) by G-S Barbot de Villeneuve’s book (1775)
Bug’s Life (1998) from Aesop’s Fables
Cinderella (1950) from Charles Perrault’s folk tale (Grimm’s Fairy Tails) (1697)
Chicken Little (2005) from the folk tale
Christmas Carol (2009) from Charles Dickens (1843)
Fantasia (1940) scored and based on Bach, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven & other classical compositions (however, “ The Rite Of Spring” was licensed)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845)
Hercules (1997) from the Greek myth
In Search of the Castaways (1962) based on Jules Verne novel (1868)
John Carter (2012) based on A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1917)
Kidnapped (1960) by Robert Louis Stevenson (1886)
Little Mermaid (1989) by Hans Christian Anderson (1837)
Lt. Robin Crusoe U.S.N. (1966) based on Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe (1719)
Mulan (1998) from the Chinese Legend of Hua Mulan
Oliver & Company (1988) based on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens (1839)
Return to Neverland (2002) based on Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie (1904)
Pinocchio (1940) by Carlo Collodi (1883)
Pocahontas (1995) from the life and legend of Pocahontas
Princess and the Frog (2009) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale The Frog Prince
Return to Oz (1985) from L. Frank Baum’s books
(When original Oz film was made it was under copyright. Disney purchased rights to all the books. But when Return to Oz was made it had entered the public domain.)
Rob Roy the Highland Rogue (1953) based on the Rob Roy by Sir Walter Scott (1817)
Robin Hood (1973) from the English folk tales
Sorcerer’s Apprentice (2010) from the poem by Johann Goethe (1797)
Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (1857)
Sleeping Beauty (1959) from the Charles Perrault folk tale (1697) (also with music/characters from Tchaikovsky’s 1890 ballet)
Swiss Family Robinson (1960) by Johann David Wyss (1812)
Tangled (2010) from the Brothers’ Grimm fairy tale Rapunzel (1812)
Tarzan (1999) from Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1914)
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) based on the Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving (1820) and Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame (1908)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) from Victor Hugo’s Book (1831)
The Lion King (1994) from Hamlet (1603) and inspired from a 1960s Japanese animated series called Kimba the White Lion
The Jungle Book (1967) by Rudyard Kipling (1894 copyright, movie released just one year after copyright expired)
The Jungle Book (1994 live action version) by Rudyard Kipling (1894)
Three Musketeers (1993) by Alexandre Dumas (1844)
The Reluctant Dragon (1941) based on the story by Kenneth Grahame (1898).
The Sword in the Stone (1963) from the Arthurian Legends
Treasure Planet (20002) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)
Muppet Treasure Island (1996) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)
Treasure Island (1950) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) by Jules Verne (1870)
White Fang (1991) by Jack London (1906)
White Fang 2: Myth of the White Wolf (1994) based on book by Jack London (1906)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

.let me show you how ignorant your opinion is here
Clearly you have not seen the film. And just believe what like minded people have said to you.

its idealization of slavery.

What the hell are you on? The movie is set well after the civil war during middle-reconstruction. There’s no slaves and nobody supporting slavery!
is a tale of how people can reach beyond race. How different people and different lifestyles will shape the individual but we can all be friends regardless of backgrounds.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Privilege has nothing to do with it.
I refuse to let the politics of others temper my enjoyment of art.

SotS is a thorn in the side of Disney in the US.
It opened to, much like many other films, a load of criticism from ignorant people who never had seen any aspect of the film. All that criticism based on false ideas that had nothing to do with the film.

The difference with Disney is they try to stay out of controversy.

You speak of privilege? The film itself does a very good job of showing how that is simply a stumbling block to be bridged.

I’d also say I more liked the film than loved. I consider it one of if not their best. Fantasia is about the same level in my view.
an opinion is tainted if made from other’s opinions alone.
How many controversial films I enjoy? Have you seen any?
Passion of the Christ, very well done work of high fantasy
Hostel, body horror goes mainstream with a big budget. 2 was the best.
August Underground, amazing view into self perpetuating anguish.
A Serbian Film, a deep heavy allegory for a corruption of life.

Song of the South: friendship and happiness can be found despite cultural roadblocks.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Baskett Was the leading role of the film! His breakout performance made it possible for a whole generation of actors to find serious roles in film thereafter!
And he won an Academy Award for the performance.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about because you haven’t seen the film.

Reality for you? The film was initially a problem because of how well it displayed the lead. The mainstream wasn’t interested in a happy, carefree, honest, well carried African lead.
Wasn’t ready for a story of respect and love. Wasn’t ready to see an integrated world.

Neither the film nor the message were racist. Tainted by the time, sure. But definitely promoting integration and harmony.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Baskett was the leading role of the film!

But the Oscar he got didn’t reflect that.

His breakout performance made it possible for a whole generation of actors to find serious roles in film thereafter!

Only a small proportion and only as black characters, not as characters whose skin tone wasn’t important to their role. Such institutionalized racism continues today.

And he won an Academy Award for the performance.

An honorary award that didn’t reflect his central role, and he wasn’t even awarded it until his death two years after the movie’s release.

Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about because you haven’t seen the film.

Projected the troll.

Reality for you? The film was initially a problem because of how well it displayed the lead.

That’s not what the NAACP said in their protests.

The mainstream wasn’t interested in a happy, carefree, honest, well carried African lead.

Funny how the mainstream paid a total of $3.3 million in 1940’s money at the box office then.

Wasn’t ready for a story of respect and love. Wasn’t ready to see an integrated world.

And you still aren’t. You’re also not ready to do your research, either, by all accounts.

Neither the film nor the message were racist. Tainted by the time, sure. But definitely promoting integration and harmony.

See my previous comments.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Come back after watching the film. And stop placing society’s faults on the back of a single piece of art.

You have no ability to form rational commentary about the contents of a film you have not seen.

Mind you I’m not on a hill for this single film. I’m up here for every sanctimonious self aggrandising turd who makes claims about art they have never had first hand experience with.
‘Blah blah bad blah blah horrible blah blah ban blah’
“Have you seen the film:listened to the album:read the book?”
No

Then Sod off. You’re text book ignorant.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

So after I write a well thought out comment soundly rebutting each of your nonpoints, and describe a scene from the movie earlier than that, you circle back to “You haven’t watched the movie!” Clearly, you’re just a troll and not worth engaging with. Your comment has been flagged, you racist scumbucket.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:15

That ‘out of context misquote’ is actually in Song of the South. I should know because I used to watch that film on DVD all the time as a kid, so AC is right to call you racist for not seeing the obvious issues with it. As my granddad always used to say, “There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.”

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

At least with you I could then have a rational conversation.

Ask yourself something, is it racism, or environmental

Step aside of you preconceived notions about me (which are wrong).
When did you first see it? 70s, 80s? And not under the segregation of the time the film was made.

You forget (of know not) the US had governmental censorship boards at the time regarding film.
Violent racism was a much more normalised part of life.

Disney had to carefully craft a method of being both supportive and not completely overt.
SotS was banned from showing in many theatres just because the lead was actually black. Zip zip don’t.

The problem is not seeing the racial byproducts in todays eyes.
It’s seeing it’s whole under a 2022 view and not that of when it was made.
Disney pushed equality to the edge in this film. The extreme they could get away with. You can argue they didn’t go far enough to match today’s values.
But that wasn’t the point nor the job.

You miss the message of then. That race should not be a divided classing. That these are people just like whites. Not animals. Cultured. Intelligent.

At the same time, going too far would not have helped anyone. As the film would simply not be shown at all.
They had to pass the film classification board, the theatre boards, and local censorship laws.
One complaint was
Enough to pull a film to investigate. And while a single complaint wouldn’t have shut down a Disney film hundreds could have kicked it out of a region.

When discussing film you need to not only look back but look ok from then as well.
Sure, again, there are segregationist tones in the film. That was the way of the time but look deeper at just how progressive a message was placed under that.

The film was not racist, it was bound within in racial identity at the time. And did, in my view, a great job of still pushing that aside for the constraints is was under!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

You claim to have seen the movie, and yet you still missed the message of, “Oh, life was so much better when I was considered another man’s property.” That’s not Walt Disney trying to slide a positive view of African-Americans past censors, it’s him trying to subliminally plant a pro-slavery message in everyone.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18

Oh, life was so much better when I was considered another man’s property.

Except that was not the exact statement.
“Better” can be heard “easier”. Not “greater”.

And in context easier is more fitting. Success is based on effort.
Preserver despite troubles.

When people like you single out lines and quotes, I’m reminded of Dee Snider. Under the Blade.
To transfer that epic trouncing of congressional stupidity:
If you go in looking for pro slavery you will find pro slavery. If you go in looking for equality you will find equality.

Is Hostel a torture film series, or a depiction of how uncontrolled consumerism will end existence?

Salo was called filth and porn on its release and is today held as one of the greatest depictions of absolute power corrupting!

August Underground: snuff porn? Or a tale of how, unbound, humanity can revert to beast. The horror of the unrestricted and uncontrolled mind.

You approach the film under the culture you have wrapped yourself in and see what you are told to see.

I approach all art as blank as I can.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Set after the Civil War, with Uncle Remus saying how things were better before it just before breaking into Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. If that’s not idealizing slavery, I don’t know what is. So what you were saying about not having seen the movie and just believing what like-minded people have said is obviously just projection on your part.

Arijirija says:

Re:

At the risk of feeding the troll, I have to point out that the less chance you will have of being harrassed by copyright trolls if you mash something up from a Public Domain Steamboat Willie and something else Public Domain, once Mickey Mouse’s initial appearance enters the Public Domain. I mean, we’ve already seen that Winnie the Pooh, once Christopher Robin disappears from the scene, turns into a mallet-wielding monster … who knows what Mickey Mouse will prove to be? A copyright-troll-eating haunter of New York subways? A devourer of sleazy Mickey Mouse porn mags? The saviour of the Earth from deranged superheroes?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
KingBacon (profile) says:

Because if Mickey Mouse enters the Public Domain, he’ll become generic and boring just like everything else that enters the public domain! The less stuff there is in the public domain, the more people become creative because they don’t have to rely on it! Plus, Mickey Mouse not entering the public domain pisses off Republicans. That, alone, should be enough of a reason to keep him out of the public domain forever!

Naughty Autie says:

Re:

Because if Mickey Mouse enters the Public Domain, he’ll become generic and boring just like everything else that enters the public domain!

Things being generic isn’t the problem you might think it is. As for them becoming boring, don’t you think that might be as a result of them being locked up until long after they’re no longer to the public’s taste?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I feel like you might be missing a joke about Mickey being generic and boring; at least, I don’t remember him ever having much of a personality of his own. You could just drop Mickey into any story; and, indeed, Disney often did that with Mickey replacing the protagonist in a fairy tale or public-domain story.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Just art harder, fool

An artist doesn’t conjure art out of nowhere. Someone who has lived their entire life in a blank, windowless room cannot make art. Only after viewing other art (art by humans as well as art by nature) can people create their own art.

The less stuff there is in the public domain, the more people become creative because they don’t have to rely on it!

This is like saying that limiting the ingredients a chef can use makes the chef’s meals more creative. “Unconventional” and “painfully contrived” are not equivalent to “creative”. Imagine forcing an average adult (or even a master chef!) to cook a palatable, “creative” dish using only these ingredients: raw pork chops, salt, and sunflower oil. “I’m so glad that KingBacon has freed me from the tyranny of having to rely on ingredients such as pepper, garlic, lemon juice, butter, and oregano. I should only be permitted to use such ingredients with the blessing of chef Gordon Ramsay Disney anyway.” Give the chef more seasonings, at the very least! And the chef can’t cook something interesting without having had witnessed interesting dishes made by other people (or by happy accidents).

To be sure, temporarily limiting someone’s available material can help them improve their skills, but it also caps their creative potential (which is not a risk posed by increasing access to material). The more material there is in the public domain, the more creative potential artists have. People cannot generate ideas out of nowhere: they can merely observe them. Creativity is in the way an artist combines existing ideas to produce something interesting, not just in the artist’s selection of ideas.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Because if Mickey Mouse enters the Public Domain, he’ll become generic and boring just like everything else that enters the public domain!

Even if that were to become true, it wouldn’t be the public domain’s fault. It would be Disney’s fault, because Disney would waste time shedding crocodile tears and whining about competition in the market of human eyeballs. Mickey Mouse’s being in the public domain wouldn’t stop Disney from making interesting things with Mickey Mouse, but it would allow unaffiliated artists to make their own interesting things with Mickey Mouse. It’s a net gain for the common public, whether or not Disney chooses to take advantage of the gain.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Maybe some day someone will actually fix the country. It’s not just Republicans. There are tiny always-angry groups forming in every party.

Too many Republicans in power don’t give an second thought to middle America. Let alone poor cities.

To many dems just want to take money from people and give it to other people RH style.
Nobody wants to cut spending anywhere.
And now we’ve got another proxy war concern.
We’re headed to the 60s all over again.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Because the media is insane.
They need to please corporate overlords and vulture capital and well the best way to do that is to paint corporations as poor put upon waifs being bullied by the big bad public domain.

Its the same reason it was very rare in the early days of Mango Mussolini no outlet ever bothered to actually push back in real time every time he lied.

Anonymous Coward says:

The media has always been a lapdog for copyright, because they think of it as a lottery through which they’ll finally make it big. They’re thus adverse to biting the hand they think is feeding them – while completely oblivious to the spike-ridden strap-on that Rupert Murdoch has been anally probing them with.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Most minimalists don’t bother to read Techdirt, nor to educate themselves on these issues, instead preferring to stick to tired bullshit like “fans do it better for free” and “information deserves to be free” while being just as myopic as maximalists, who can, have and will continue to make up excuses to justify thwir need to control culture for a fraction of a decimal of next quarter’s profit.

Murdoch et al are the real enemy here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Disney is really losing something...

This story at https://torrentfreak.com/brein-settles-with-pirate-iptv-seller-afer-global-chase-220725/ again reminds us that the criminals do not respect rights of the copyright owners. Given this background, it’s no suprise that copyright expiration is considered as “criminals will get benefits when they don’t have to pay for the material”, and legal services are still wary of using the material. Even after copyright expired, usage of the material is dangerous, given that it still has the feeling that you’re getting valuable service without having to pay for it. Freebie services always means that someone is getting ripped off. While copyright owners already had their chance with 70+life for getting the material valuable, the large investments they did over the course of material’s copyright terms still feels like users are ripping off the company.

While the goal of providing animations for children is respectable goal for any animation system, the company profits are always ruling the henhouse.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

First off, shame of Finland, criminals do NOT respect anyine’s rights. It doesn’t matter whether their masters are from China or Murdoch or actual mafia dons. That’s how things like, let’s say, meth cut with washing powder, or Identity Theft, happens.

Secondly, with “free” services, we know EXACTLY who’s the product, and if there’s any errors, it is likely due to incompetence rather than actual malice. Unlike YOU.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

somehow your priorities are wrong when you call following the law/implementing copyright law’s requirements as malice.

So you didn’t read what I typed.

I did not bring up the ethics of following the law. YOU DID.

I’ll Repeat what I said. In simple language even a kid could understand.

Criminals do not respect anyone’s rights. Because they operate outside the law and do not give a fuck about anyone else but themselves and the people under them. Those that do operate within the law are called corporations and politicians.
Criminals do not care about other people. They will do whatever the fuck they want.
If the product is free, you are the product. Your information is usually the one being sold. Any fuckups with the free product is usually due to incompetence and not malice.

The Link Tax was paid for by Rupert Murdoch, and you apparently think this is a good thing. And the software implementation for THAT is to pull out of the markets with it.

No one brought in the ethics or the virtues of following the law, shame of Finland. YOU DID.

And it doesn’t matter, because I never brought it up.

Again, what I actually said.

Criminals do not respect anyone’s rights.
Criminals do not care about other people.
If the product is free, you are the product.

I’d tell you to use critical thinking, but you are too used to believing in hard authoritian bullshit and copyright maximalism to even use that.

Please die in a fucking fire.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

you mean Dibsney putting wordmarks on the titles of Public Domain fairytales,

Copyright is not attached to the mere idea of whatever the fairytale is. But when you invest your money and effort to create a movie and you get some tangible expression out of from your idea, copyright attaches to the tangible expression. The fairytale still isn’t protected, the copyright only attaches to the particular expression of the idea.

So it means copying the movie is forbidden, but telling your friends about the fairytale is still allowed. Your friends just are not allowed to take the movie without compensation and watch/distribute it to their friends, even if that particular expression is awesome.

So if you tell the fairytale without referring to the end result movie, it’s all ok. It’s only when you link your friends to the pirated movie that you’re doing illegal stuff.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

So stop saying that people should be censored with extra copyright, chump.

It’s careful balancing act whether to follow copyright rules or some other rules that might conflict with copyright. For example user interfaces have a rule that you shouldn’t stretch the comfortable area of the users, but that usually requires cloning other people’s user interface instead of inventing completely new ones. Basically users can only stand incremental improvements to user interfaces instead of complete overhaul of the user interface..

Copyright obviously doesn’t like cloning. This way copyright is censoring the practices that users are demanding.

Of course the correct alternative is to do your own market research by asking users what they expect from the user interface instead of cloning someone else’s answer to the question.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

So here you basically demonstrate a lack of understanding of others’ comments as well as copyright law.

So now your own opinions are forbidden? If I actually have better and more extensive experience creating copyrighted works, that experience somehow should not be used in a discussion about copyright? Other people simply failed to create copyrighted works, (or they’re hiding them under matress, which doesn’t really count)…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

We’ve no need to invent such a system

If the smart people in RIAA/MPAA also decided that they have no need to develop such system, we wouldn’t have “surround sound” available at all. Your decisions have consiquences that you simply cannot see beforehand. If you decide to not develop the next generation technology, soon you’ll notice that the people who developed the previous generation tech are all dead by now, and you decided not to develop your own tech at all. The kids/the people where future is at are not yet mature enough to develop anything on their own, so it’s your responsibility to keep technology bleeding edge moving forward. Otherwise we simply don’t have the technology that we need.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

that I’m guilty of contributory infringement if the purchaser of the device I sold to CeX uses it to download copyrighted material?

Yes. Product design is tricky business, you actually need to balance many competing interests, including the one from RIAA/MPAA. No product can please all customers, but some rules and regulations are more important than others, and those important ones will be encoded to the laws of the country.

If your product has problems fulfilling basic legal statues, maybe you shouldn’t be attempting to create a product for mass market. Maybe a product for legal experts might be more suitable.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re:

So why do you offer them a toy, when Synfig Studio and Blender allow real animation in 2d and 3d spaces, and allow them to create works that would be useful in their portfolio.

Lol, so you think the children are in need of portfolio items? Noone is going to remember what the kids did when they were 15 years old, and some random animations are not suitable as portfolio items. The world didn’t recognize our work in 68000 assembler for commercial amiga games, so why do you think the kids are going to benefit from some random animations in their portfolio?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

But an animation which has had time and effort put into its creation can be, and 15 is not too young to start building a portfolio for a creative career, which include a YouTube career these days..

This url http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?p=1543756 shows what happens to stuff created in 1994. This is the first person who thinks that mega motion game that I created for amiga was actually good game. Noone looking at my portfolio is going to find this message from the flood of thousands of similar messages. They would need to find the needle from the haystack. I just follow what has happened to the technologies that I created, so I can find it, but it’s no use for my portfolio.

I don’t expect 15 year old children to be any more luck than what I can do myself.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

They earnt money before that statute, by selling manuscripts, or being paid to create new music and paintings. If you can demonstrate an ability to create, you have a sellable skill, which is why fans support their favorite creators regardless of the existence of copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

How to miss the point that it did not exist as a creator right before the statute of Anne, and people still told each other stories and created art, and even made a living doing so. Creativity is not dependent on copyright, and nor is the creators ability to make a living. What copyright achieves is allowing middlemen publishers to control the market, and get rich on the backs of creators.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 History

Royal? Lol. You’re too recent!

The original of copy right (right to print copy) comes from, originally:
作
曰

The grant to a member of a warrior or guard family to use ink blocks and have access to skin. Originally the protection was for three reasons.
Controlling print allowed for only officially clears printings.
Controlling skin and pelt meant print on anything else was not authorised
Official print blocks were also used as sigil stamps.

Copyright, though, was always about control. First of the entire process.
Later of both the process and the cost. Finally under freedom of expression the copyright was stripped down to only the ability to control what has already been printed.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Ignoring the fact that an Emperor makes imperial mandates, not Royal, the first mentions of copyright comes from Western European nations. Right or copy came after royal grant. But we’re basically the same thing.

I was, however referring to Greater-China, predating modern copyright by nearly 2700 years! Most academics put bot rapid typesetting and restrictions on print as coming in the mid 殷代 era. But un-set blocknprinting came across the desert from Western Asia during Xi.
Restoration of pelts from late Xi show diagrams of set blocks. Probably a design from lower Mesopotamia originally as there is signs of uniform marking as far back as 2200bce.

This was the Larger tribal era of ancient China.
Showing that information control and content protection has always been a factor.

The difference being over time. Originally a method of source authentication, by the Middle Ages it became content control. By the 1500s the idea of print rights became a matter of status. Owners of authorisations spent massive amounts of money to gain rights. Which allowed direct access to the highest levels of Nobel society.
But as printers gained position as authorised censor they were able to expand to printing non-royal materials. Creating a recouperary return on the investment.
Printing became generational.
As the printers sent family over to the colonies they retained their mandates and censor positions. After the war, such presses were passed to close friends or high ranking employees.
Creating the American press business of today.

The same track can be followed in Australia, southern and Eastern Africa.
English and Spanish South America.
Etc.

The premise of perpetual wealth under copyright is a Western idea. Where eastern development focused on proof of source.
Countries with minimal long term Western influence have very short protective terms. Rarely longer than 20-some years.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

What a short term view of history you have, as people created new works long before printing was even thought of. Stories like the Iliad and Beowulf etc, only exist today because people freely copied cultural works. Only a rich culture of sharing and copying built the legacy that allowed the Brothers Grimm to collect and publish the fairy tales that made them famous. Disney continued this tradition with many of their films, but have tried to make themselves that last of the line of copiers with their copyright maximalism.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

quite obvious why, really. the entertainment industries, Disney, Sony, Nintendo among the worst, are actually fucking up the world of entertainment by contiuously doing whatever they think of to keep control of movies, music, and everything else. they are making similar moves on the Internet and be warned, those supporting them from security services, courts, judges and senators etc, once it has been taken from ‘the people’ and put in USA (in particular, but only) hands, it will never be the same again nor will the people get it back!!

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Interesting that you put Sony and Nintendo there…

Interesting that you put “Sony” and “Nintendo” there considering that those two are both Japanese companies, and Nintendo was founded in 1889 and their first product is actually in the public domain. I mean, really, you can see their original designs on Wikipedia and you can purchase identical competitors to it. Yet, Nintendo still makes those Hanafuda playing card decks, and I have two of them (one of them has Mario designs which are obviously copyrighted).

You would think that Nintendo’s continued existence in the Hanafuda market would teach them a lesson about copyright, but sadly, no.

IPTV Smarters (user link) says:

IPTV Smarters

Quite clear, in fact. By continuously trying whatever they think of to maintain control over movies, music, and everything else, the entertainment industries—Disney, Sony, and Nintendo being among the worst—are literally messing up the world of entertainment. When it is taken from “the people” and placed in the hands of the USA (in particular, but exclusively), it will never be the same again, and the people will never get it back. Be warned, those supporting them from security services, courts, judges, and senators, etc.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

While Everyone Was Focused On Crypto Scams, Walmart Was Out Here Actively Helping Scammers
Fifth Circuit Tells Cops ‘Hispanic On A Bike’ Isn’t Enough Suspicion To Justify Stops Of Hispanics On Bikes
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...