kadmos1’s Techdirt Profile


About kadmos1

kadmos1’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 24th, 2018 @ 5:06pm

    That will be the day that..

    That will be the day that the Walt Disney Empire* does something like this. Me watching a pirated House of Mouse movie is where I don't feel as guilty because it's a copyright maximalist organization. Doing the same thing for a movie from a smaller studio like the "Man From Earth" studio is where I have more sympathy.

    *who are basically a sworn enemy of copyright expiration and that's why they like lobbying/politically bribing Congress.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 10:06pm

    This is how rights holders and pirates/torrenters can work together.

    I frequent scanlation sites, so I am guilty of "piracy" if you consider loading each manga page to be downloading. However, I don't adhere to the profitable scanlation idea unless the rights holder gives the nod.

    What they did with this movie sequel is a fair balance: the movie staff is allowing people to download the film and in exchange they ask the consumers to not the film on a profit-making platform (like YT). Given it was on such a low-budget, I do stand with the rights holders needing to make a return on what was invested. This is how rights holders and pirates/torrenters can work together.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 9:54pm

    The rights holders of this movie could decide

    The rights holders of this movie could decide to make public notice saying something to the effect of "feel free to use our movie how you want but credit us and make sure it complies with your local and country laws". Unless they or you get a license for something like a public presentation at your college, you still might not to consult a lawyer regarding the applicability of fair use.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 9:48pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think that virtually/effectively perpetual/infinite is just as bad as literally perpetual/infinite.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 9:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    Piracy/copyright infringement is usu. theft/close to it, if you look at it from a moral/ethical and sometimes legal standpoint. However, not all rights holders share this view. I would lean on more towards the indie movie studios that might share this view and not the bigger, copyright maximalist studios like the House of Mouse or the WB.

  • Jan 17th, 2018 @ 7:32pm

    (untitled comment)

    Perhaps "perpetual copyright" is better to use then because that's what life+70 essentially is.

  • Jan 17th, 2018 @ 7:12pm

    Re: Re: Richard

    When it is a set amount like 95 years, it is finite. However, for practical purposes, it is near infinite as most people alive when that work was first published will be dead. When it was a 56-year, they stood a better chance at eventually using the public domain status.

    When you have a variable (lifespan of artist)+70 years, that is not finite.It is only finite when the collective amount is calculated (life+70 could mean 120 years total coverage).

    A variable+a finite number I see as being similar to infinity is similar to infinity+finite number. Infinity meaning lacking a finite or specified amount means that life+70 is essentially infinite.

  • Jan 16th, 2018 @ 9:13am


    I hate the Berne Convention for allowing for a perpetual copyright. "Perpetual" in the sense of lacking a finite term. Life+50 lacks a finite amount. Since life times vary, it is not finite.

  • Sep 15th, 2017 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Robinson Crusoe had natural rights so long as the cannibals didn't violate those by killing and eating him.

    While Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures, Fox Film (including 20th Century Fox), Universal, and Paramount did establish an empire using public domain stories, they also used still copyrighted stories. I say it was the House of Mouse that is the biggest offender of this since many of their most believed stories are public-domain based.

  • Jul 18th, 2017 @ 9:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    This is a case of where public domain and copyright sort of balance each other: the original is now public domain but there are still copyrighted master/digitally remastered versions. Despite being a copyright minimalist (namely from Disney lobbying), at least there is a private and public property version. The trick is figuring out which is the original because otherwise you would be downloading a still-copyrighted version.

  • Feb 10th, 2017 @ 5:29am

    (untitled comment)

    Museum's like this know how American copyright is supposed to be: promoting the arts/sciences where the public is main beneficiary.

  • Dec 7th, 2016 @ 6:06pm

    (untitled comment)

    Copyright trolling has gotten out of control. Here's a rant on how estates and corporations here have actually been abusing said system:

    Even when a work becomes public domain in the USA, there are still ways to perpetual copyright : Trademarking the name, for example. The 2012 case of Golan v. Holder copyright restored many public foreign works here that were still copyrighted in their native countries. Also, even domestic works can get re-copyrighted, even if there was failure to renew its copyright. A famous case was "It's A Wonderful Life" became public domain in 1975 because a clerical error failed to renew the copyright. But it got a re-copyright of sorts here.

    Look up the 1990 Stewart V. Abend case. Republic Pictures (the successor to a film company that had the movie copyrights until 1975) had the films rights to the book that the movie is based off of and the music rights, so they did a copyright restoration of sorts to the film in 1993 by citing Abend. An Information Tech Law Wiki article (itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Stewart_v._Abe...) summarizes the SCOTUS ruling for this case.

    Through some library acquisitions and company mergers, the film is now under copyright by Paramount Pictures. Under current copyright law, the soundtrack copyrights, provided no extensions are made, will expire in Feb. 2067. By this, I take it that the film with the music will be public domain (again) in Feb. 2067.

    As long as a the rights holder is still making money from that work through other rights (music, privacy, publicity) then those works are not actually public domain. In terms of IP, I define a work being in 'public domain" here as when the rights holders can no longer legally make any money off of any the IP rights coming from that work. Now, I can handle a derivative work (like a colorized version but maximalists doing digital restorations should not count) since at least an initial work is public domain.

    Even if all the, you still can't title a book "Tarzan" without asking ERB, Inc. This is because that name is trademarked. As such, it acts as a perpetual copyright. How else have our copyrights laws become screwed up? Say 1 of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is out of film copyright but still has the music copyrights.

    If IP infringement is deemed theft by many people, then re-copyrights and the trademarking a public domain name is "public domain infringement" and thus stealing form the public.

  • Oct 7th, 2015 @ 4:52pm

    Re: I would put the copyright

    I meant to say "tied to a specific work".

  • Oct 7th, 2015 @ 4:45pm

    I would put the copyright

    I would put the copyright length at 50 years maximum and no extensions are allowed. If the creator dies before 50 years pass, the length is # of years passed before they died+ # of years left until it equals 50. For example, dying at 25 years in means it's 25 more years until the public domain kicks in.

    With this, each and every copyright they had tied a specific work (for a movie, the script, music, etc.) all becomes public domain at the same time.

    All of the above also would apply to trademarks.