Well, from Sonic 2 all the way to Sonic and Knuckles, Dr Robotnik's main flying fortress was something that resembled the Death Star and had his glasses and huge moustache built onto it to scale, and it was called the "Death Egg".
And particularly in Sonic 3, Michael Jackson's music and beats can be heard in derived tracks in some zones, most notably in the Ice Cap zone where a track that sounds quite parallel to Smooth Criminal is played.
And Super Sonic's "transformation" is obviously very similar to Goku's Super Saiyan transformation, and the 7 Chaos Emeralds can very well be a liking to the 7 Dragonballs.
I thought the point made here was fucking incredible:
"If Google is proven wrong, pretty much that entire software stack -- and also many popular third-party closed-source components such as the Angry Birds game and the Adobe Flash Player -- would actually have to be published under the GPL," he writes."
In other words you can't actually know if certain licenses are going to be legit... to the point where you cannot even copyright your works safely. So much irony! So much utopianism! So much nonsense!
But yeah, I'd be happy to learn if I am mistaken about this. The probability of a corporation becoming corrupt, however, is always high. So I have good cause to be suspect.
Re: Re: Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
And still, none of your rhetoric about defending artists' rights has been applied towards defending derivative artists. They are expendable, I take it? You haven't attempted to address my points, while I clearly addressed yours.
Let me repeat, then. Both original artists and derivative artists are protected when you throw away copyright and embrace assurance contracts. Disney's artists are not being opposed here. They are being treated equally with derivative artists, who are hard-working artists just as much as they are.
And if you don't think it can be done with crowdfunding, take note: Rockstar recently recouperated all of their production costs for one of the "most expensive video games ever made" through a crowdfunding-like system called pre-orders. No copyright is needed when you force everyone to pay up first, and threaten withholding the game until everyone pays their dues - consumers and corporations alike. In fact, you STOP pirates from stealing with this philosophy because you make them responsible for their actions. You have no excuse for copyright in the face of this, and you certainly have no excuse to say derivative artists have no right to open up brand-new expressions to audiences.
Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
There is an easy way to completely falsify your position. If Disney had said "no" to the crossover/derivative work Kingdom Hearts, everybody would have missed out on a lot of added value to the video games industry. Many jobs would have been cast aside, and life, liberty and property in general would have been spat on.
But that nonetheless does happen. It happens to all the derivative works Disney is saying no to right at this moment, which far outnumber the singular original works. THAT'S what it means to trample on property rights (intellectual property rights, as a matter of fact).
My quarrel is this: they should not have the power to say no to such derivative works, let alone the ability to legally regulate their own power through lobbying. If it wasn't for copyright preventing assurance contracts from fully flourishing in the economy, both Disney's works AND the derivative works including Kingdom Hearts would have come about WITHOUT the need for Disney's permission. Crowdfunding "works without the assumption" of copyright, to paraphrase Laplace. And the projects will easily tally profits in the millions (billions?) once it becomes mainstream.
I happily accept that Disney had a right to derive from the anime Kimba the White Lion. They had a right to do so. So what? In fact I would defend Disney against anybody (yourself included) who tried to prevent them from bringing something great to many audiences. And even if I didn't think so, my hypothetical hypocrisy wouldn't say anything about the truth of your argument.
I'm not going to have it from you that Disney's permission on the creation of Kingdom Hearts is the determining factor of the fruits of labour of that product, and that their saying "no" to it somehow immediately revokes the work and effort of the hundreds of artists and musicians and programmers and designers, and thousands of hours of sweat and tears they poured into it. To say that their work "doesn't belong to them" if Disney says so is disgraceful. How dare you talk about these hard-working artists like that. How dare you deny the EXISTENCE of their work by so disgustingly claiming it is not their work at all.
You cannot one the one had claim that the unique symphonies of non-property musical notes, for example, entitles you to claim ownership over those symphonies, and then on the other hand immediately claim those symphonies are not unique after all, because they "overlap" with other possible derivative symphonies and therefore all those derivatives belong to you to. If symphonies are truly unique, no overlap should exist. This is copyright's great paradox that nobody will ever reconcile.
If somebody cobbles together a shit product - "cut and pasted" from the web as you say - that would have taken anybody 5 minutes to make, they will obviously not be able to sell it as well (or crowdfund it as well, in my economic philosophy minus copyright) because its value would be so bad, and they will not get far. You are acting paranoid over nothing.
The determining factor that separates 5 minute works from the much better stuff is not the "intangible" attributes of intellectual property as John Locke might say, but the SERVICE, which is the under-appreciated form of intellectual property. And crowfunding so beautifully captures this in the way that copyright cannot hope to do so.
I don't accept that parody should be the only form of permitted derivative work. Believe it or not there are other forms of deriving and adding value, and the only reason "parody" gets more favourable reception is because satire - irony and humour - are things that solidify freedom of expression much clearer than, say, serious stories of characters growing up and reflecting on their past tales, or alternative "what if?" viewpoints that add to the debate with the power of great metaphors. These things do exist, believe it or fucking not. And every time copyright stamps them out they attack the very core principles of the dialectic. When it comes to freedom of expression vs. ownership of expression, freedom has to win.
Somebody like you should really put your money where your mouth is and call for the mass-infringing, profit-making website deviantArt to be shut down. You know... in the name of "advancing creativity", and such. That is, if you have the guts.
Re: Because THIEVES always use it as easier way to steal!
Subway workers make sandwiches, too, but that doesn't mean they own them. Don't make the same mistake as the strict socialists.
And by the way, your philosophy is totally unprepared for the advances of technology in the future. 3D printer? No chance. Google Fiber? Dead philosophy walking. Tor exapansion? Luddite tantrums are calling.
I, however, do not suffer from such needless destabilisation and multiplication of unnecessary constants. Assurance contracts are the only moral solution. Crowdfunding is where the real revolution lies - not in Netflix or Spotify, or even Google.
And oh yeah, the derivative artists get their rights with my way, too. Long live deviantArt!
Whenever I shout "http://thepiratebay.org" aloud in the street in public, I have effectively "linked" all listening passers-by to the Pirate Bay and defied a lot of court orders. Simply by stating what the link is.
Because that is what all "link" websites effectively do. People often forget that it is the CLICKER'S BROWSER that actually carries out the automatic process of copy/pasting the link into the URL bar and sending the request for the HTML.
The guy who sends the message containing the location of that link is doing nothing more than I would if I were to shout the Pirate Bay's address in front of a crowd.
In fact, the Chilling Effects DMCA page that Google offers in relation to copyrighted content has effectively done the exact opposite of what it was intended to do, by STATING the many sites that were removed from the search pages and effectively "linking" the user in the process of stating what they are. This is preposterous.
What fool seriously thinks that because the text of a link is not an underlined hyperlink, that therefore it is not a link at all?
This is the state of affairs we are in, people. A mass delusion of wish-thinking and self-deceit. At least Charles Dickens somewhat implicitly acknowledged the impossibility of the copyright utopia. Here, we are just lying to ourselves.
"This I.P. leads to the many offices of a large corporation. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"We have found the computer in question, but it was a Tor exit node. We have found the next I.P. in the chain. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"We have found 23 more I.P. steps in the chain and one of them routed through a school firewall. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"This final I.P. address seems to lead to a cafe with WiFi access. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"The cafe has noted access by yet another middleman relaying to a neighbourhood all the way from fucking England. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"The final I.P., as in THE final one this time, has lead to a flat owner who had his WiFi hacked by a password cracker. We have no evidence of who did the hacking, and could have literally been anyone on the planet. That final pirate has not been caught. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"How DARE that flat owner not monitor his internet usage! Pirate facilitator!!!?!!?"
Yes, because copyright is your saviour against the Chinese government's leeching. 80% of the global piracy market and superpower strength to keep it that way? No problem! Copyright can solve all problems! You can TOTALLY control the Chinese government however you want!
No. What it does is ENABLE this regime to have this 80% piracy share by turning them into the Al-Capones of this prohibitionism. Kim Dotcom would also, similarly, want copyright to be in law so that he can benefit from the untaxed, unregulated rewards.
How do you stop them from stealing? Like all methods of fixing illegal monopolies as a result of unjust prohibition: stop the prohibition. They will suffer from a free-rider problem and will no longer be able to steal from the artists.
And all while the artists get filthy rich from crowdfunded support (which everyone - consumers and corporations alike - will have to turn to if they want their rewards).
That's how you stop stealing. And that's how you have a system of life, liberty and property that doesn't overlap with the rights of derivative artists.
Freedom of speech. It comes under attack from all kinds of slippery slopes: the desire to protect the "easily offended", the religious fools who claim the right to be protected from blasphemy, the claims of "incitement" that by definition absolve responsibility of the person actually committing the crime because he supposedly loses control of his actions as a result of the "inciter", the over-extension of libel laws, the workers who are compelled into silence by their bosses (a big example recently being the risk analysers of bank managers), the super-injunctions of the U.K. that particularly stop women from calling out on their cheating husbands but also protect big corporations from exposure of their corruption, and plenty of others indeed.
Considering the long history of attacks from slippery slopes on freedom of speech, I can guarantee that the copyright maximalist who claims that, when it comes to his utopian vision of property, somehow freedom of speech is ITSELF the slippery slope, that maximalist has not the faintest hint of modesty whatsoever.
Copyright also overlaps with intellectual property rights, too. In particular, derivative works.
There is often a claim that goes around in counter to the reasonable observation that creations made from building blocks that belong to everyone (say, the letters of the alphabet) cannot be regarded as property, and that claim is this: "we may not own the building blocks because they are common, but we own the symphonies because they are unique". To which I respond: if the symphonies are unique, surely my symphony of Mickey Mouse told in a way never told before is also unique and therefore also my right? But apparently not.
There's no way they can escape this paradox. There is a REASON why we stress the importance of avoiding building upon property "blocks" that were never anybody's to begin with - because you get paradoxical overlaps.
If, however, such symphonies were regarded as the alternative kind of property to products - services, that is - no overlaps exist. Which is why assurance contracts such as crowdfunded projects are in the right and copyright is in the wrong.
Derivative artists have their rights to property too.
If the property were treated as services instead of products, we would not have this kind of irreconcilable overlap between an original artist's rights and derivative artists' rights.
And bear in mind, there are far more potential derivative arts than there are from the single original art.
Copyright philosophy makes the claim that creative property somehow must be treated as a product instead of a service because of the supposed "free-rider problem", but I do not accept this implication because a) the free-rider problem can not be solved by copyright, neither theoretically nor practically and b) the free-rider problem can be solved just fine with the property as a service by using assurance contracts.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
I have not forgotten about the crimes of the Soviet Union. And neither have I forgotten about the U.S.'s pushing back against the Taliban's colonisation and oppression of every conceivable minority of Afghanistan. No, I have not forgotten. What is your point?
And even if I WAS being hypocritical here, by the way, by saying "no" to putting pressure on China (what I do say is "yes" to putting pressure on China to stop its authoritarianism, considering the country's size and what scale of pressure that would be most moral), you would have only proved that I was a hypocrite, and not whether taking out Saddam Hussein after 30 years of fascist oppression was the right thing to do.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
Not everybody in Syria has "chosen" to be involved in that war, despite how you put it.
And there are many things that are supposedly none of our business: starvation in Africa, India and China, homelessness in our own countries, torture and oppression of the worst kinds in all sorts of totalitarian regimes, etc. To pretend otherwise would be to succumb to typical right-wing, isolationist, "poverty is not our problem and you can't take my property away from me" thinking. It's all too easy to forget that serious crises, including pointless civil wars that can be stopped, happen all the time on this planet while we live comfortable, quiet lives back home and get high on capitalism.
You may only live once, but you're not the only one alive.