Slashdot Mirror
The Double Edge of Copyright Extensions
porkface writes "The Morning News is running a simple, but eloquent editorial that plainly shows how Hollywood has routinely benefitted from the expiration of copyright, despite their adamant pressure on Capitol Hill to extend copyright almost indefinitely."
Corporations are run by people, beings with a great sense of need for continuity; it is this fact alone that keeps me from being surprised by the way in which some companies - from copyright-protecting movie companies which could make good out of expired copyrights to napster-fearing record labels which could use the heightened interest in their music that online exposure would bring to open-source-scared software giants who could use a little outsider criticism of their code - choose the status quo over slightly modifying the business plan to accommodate for a new world and possibly even larger profits...
What's mine is mine, what's yours should be mine also if I can profit from it.
You mean that they've been profiting... and still trying to pay off congress to let them profit more?!? Next you'll be telling me the record companies are going bankrupt.
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
"Do as we say, not as we do," apparently.
What's the other edge?
For me, the one argument I don't think big media understands here, is that Disney could still use Mickey Mouse heavily when the copyright on "him" expires. There's nothing about the expiration of copyright that says they have to remove him from Disneyland and stop selling his likeness.
It's not like they do anything these days that requires them to have some kind of exclusive rights. Even if Mickey becomes ubiquitous elsewhere, Disney can always remind us he's their child.
The public is served when copyright expires in a reasonable amount of time, because new derivitive works can flourish, and the former owner has to get of their ass and contribute something new if they want to make money.
This whole issue is yet another example of big media screwing the American public. Viva La Napster!
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
gobbles up public domain works (what percentage of their recently made animation is based on public domain works?), they are more concerned about getting more "money per unit of creativity" than about the future possibility of doing anything creative without being sued.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
There's really only a few big media companies now. The can sublicense out to themselves all they need to (ex. How many old 80's shows/cartoons have popped up as movies lately). I hate to sound cynical (well, no I don't actually) but Hollywood isn't about creativity, it's about money. Owning the merchandising rights to Mikey Mouse is worth way more than free rights to some old book. Come on folks, let's be realistic.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hollywood has routinely benefitted from the expiration of copyright, despite their adamant pressure on Capitol Hill to extend copyright almost indefinitely.
That's because they benefitted from the copyright expiration of works that they didn't make. Now that they've made a ton of money built from the ideas of others, they want to protect themselves. This is not shocking, it's how companies work. It reminds me of how most companies feel about open source code. Sure, open source is great, when you're not the one writing it.
Are menu shadows copyrighted?
LXG is based on a comic book entitled The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen
I say this acronym doesn't have a LEG to stand on.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
We must inform you that one of our member companies owns the copyright to that joke, and will for the next 287 years, congress willing.
This is a formal request to cease and desist telling it, you evil, evil, AC.
Aggressively yours,
The Lame Joke Association of America
...to the link at the bottom of the editorial - http://eldred.cc - where a campaign to petition Congress to effectively add registration to patents over fifty years old is underway.
Granted, if they want to mess with anything below fifty years, they are on seriously shaky ground - a $1.00 tax isn't enough to be considered more than a formality, in my opinion. Still, just imagine how much stuff Disney will find itself dealing with on a yearly basis to keep all of its creations and movies locked from the public domain - even if they're a large enough corporation to deal with it.
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent
If the MPAA backed extending the statuted of limitations, would the supreme court allow child molesters off the hook?
Fight Spammers!
Everyone is griping about how long copyright is, instead lets lobby congress to reduce the length back towards the origional 28 years.
What congress can do, it can undo. All that is needed is a little pressure. In fact there is a large lobby group that already exists in trying to reduce the copyright period to 50 years, unless the owners pays $1 at:
http://eldred.cc/
So lend your support to it.
"Yeah, well we're counter-suing you for infringing upon our copyright of suing!"
You have almost no knowledge of copyright law, do you? It's ok, you can admit it. Judging by the posts here, there are a lot of people in the same boat as you.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I recall reading recently about a spat between Nintendo and Universal(?). Basically Universal called up Nintendo one day saying to cough up millions of bucks for Donkey Kong, because, so they claimed that they (universal) owned the rights to King Kong. Well as the story went, Nintendo wanted to quickly settle as to not rock to boat of their franchise. So they went away tell universal they were going to research the amount and get back to them. Well Nintento cameback and told universal to go wash their heads. It seems that back in the day Universal went thru great pains to prove that King Kong was public domain so *they* didnt have to pay royalities. Of course Universal sued and lost badly as I recall reading. What can we extrapolate from this? Basically, if they cant get you to cough up legally, they will try to do it illegaly, by lying or misrepresentation. Its about who can scam the most bucks.. its not about 'intellectual property' at all.
(boy i hope that story was true:)
..that they still advertise a long distance telephone number on TV commercials for Disney World. 1-407-WDISNEY. As if it's not bad enough that a days' admission to Disney World for your family will set you back a week's pay, they won't even pick up the tab for you to call and order the tickets. This company with all its money can't be bothered to promote a 1-800 number like every other TV advertiser has been doing for 15 years.
And yet, people go for it. They pick up the phone and pay for a long distance call to contact a multibillion-dollar corporation with the intent of giving it money. I don't understand it, but I guess it's sort of like the rest of entertainment. Everyone hates the RIAA/MPAA and cries "boycott"... Until the new Eminem CD or the next Matrix comes out, and they fork over more money.
I will never, ever visit a Disney park and I make an effort to avoid Disney products. The copyright issue and the toll-free number issue are just two reasons. They're just a low down company, greedy and moneygrubbing to the end.
Foremost amongst them was Eric Eldred, a bookmonger from Massachusetts who wished to continue providing free texts to his Web site's visitors. He eventually brought suit against the federal government, and the Supreme Court heard his case, Eldred v. Ashcroft
Update: Mr. Eldred, according to his family, has not been heard of for some time. It has been rumored that Mr. Eldred may have had contacts with the "free internet texts", a free information dissident group, considered a dangerous hacker organization, and therefore very likely to be in connection with international terrorist groups.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It seems to me that liberals at every free-thinking college would be outraged. All their "classics" are essentially public domain. Why hasn't anyone else pieced together that lasting culture is defined by that which is freely available for use by all. Culture used to be about legends, shared experiences, and artistic works. Now culture is defined by some mega-corporation's marketing department.
Examples: famous paintings (images thereof, not the works), books (as mentioned in the article), nursery rhymes (Eensy-Weensee-Spider (C) 1982 by ....), folklore legend (Sleepy Hollow), and so on and so forth.
if(Government == Business) { Extend_Copyrights(current*1.1); } else { /* Will Never Get Here, just ignore */
}
Space for rent, inquire within
"Gee Mickie, why are you so depressed?"
Mickie Mouse: "They're committing Minnie to the insane asylum."
"But Mickie, I thought you said you were mad at Minnie and that she was crazy."
Mickie Mouse: "I didn't say she was crazy! I said she was fuckin' Goofy!"
So how long until I can expect a cease and disist letter from Disney?
On second thought, I guess you're right.
You know... I've heard that before... and its just as stupid-silly as the first time...
Disney probably won't do anything... until you put that on a huge billboard overlooking the I-5.
-- Fareq
P.S. Anyone out there have Photoshop skills?
Why do you bother?
It was either someone talking out their ass or a troll.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
As well as buying up other people's hard work then rebranding it Disney (see Winnie the Pooh). They act like Microsoft in the way that they swallow up good characters and established stories instead of creating their own. These purchases are then rebranded robbing the original author of credit (I'm sure they get a tiny mention somewhere).
I'm not a greedy bastard. I believe that the RIAA/MPAA are ripping us, the consumers, off, with their $20 CD/DVDs, while paying off the politicians in Washington. Information wants to be free, that's what RMS said!
If you look in the Constitution, Article III, Section IV, it plainly states the concept of "fair use", which says that it's OK to copy content as long as you don't sell it to someone else. Our Founding Fathers recognized the right to copy information freely and enshrined it in our great U.S. constitution.
There is a difference between Hollywood and a certain company. If the rights on Mickey Mouse expire I don't see what Disney gains in general with this. Since the company that makes the film doesn't have to pay anything to Disney for using it's toy, Disney won't benefit from it.
Of course, the sooner Mickey Mouse can be used, the sooner the second company could profit from it. But, they might think (or know) that keeping the rights for a lot more years will give them more money with the films they made, rather than what they'd get from using others productions.
You might also say that the use of a already worldly known character would make a film easier to sell to viewers, but since the film wouldn't be from Disney, who would be running to the theatres to see it just because of Mickey (it could even be a porn movie, not that you would like your kids to see that, would you?).
You can even add that Diskey could launch a parallel commercial campaign around the original Mickey. But, would Disney be interested in being associated to a XXX movie. Don't think so. So, in this case Disney itself wouldn't want to be in any way related to the film. Or in a case that the film is a serious piece of shit.
Of course who made the film, could generate more profit than the one it would generate from an unknown character. But the risk to the (former) copyright holder would be tremendous and possibly not worthy of the gain it would have.
So, there are, in my opinion, far more reasons to prefer an extension of copyright rather than a expiracy of it.
One thing I've been wondering is if many of the copyright holders are afraid of competition with the public domain. Some areas, such as literature, have this competition already because there are plenty of books in the public domain. However that's not exactly the case with pop music and movies.
From my experience, many of the CD's with classical music in public domain are often only 30% of the price of a popular music CD in public domain. That's not a big problem because classical music and popular music are two separate genres so the competition isn't all that significant.
What if the copyright was only 28 years and everything before 1975 would be in public domain? That would mean that we'd have lots of pop music and movies in public domain. Pre-1975 stuff isn't exactly the latest fashion but it can certainly compete with new music and movies. Pre-1975 would certainly be shown in television, heard on radio stations, sold on CD's etc. and that is something that makes me think that even if pre-1975 doesn't create all that much of money, preventing it from entering the public domain will help by making the competition easier.
I love this article.
They do not have a trademark on Mickey Mouse, that's the point. Walt Disney never thought of doing it when he made the original cartoon back in '28, why would he? So once it becomes public domain, that's it - they are totally at risk of someone annihalting their wholesome image.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I was looking at the $5.98 DVD's (they are that for a reason) but found a combo DVD with Mulan and Pocahantos. Also found one that was Moses (Prince of Egypt) and something else based on a recent movie.
The cover art was more or less similar poses of the characters on the mainstream release. Of course, because these are based on past events, there is nothing that Disney or whoever could do. I wonder how many people have been duped by this.
I'm not saying it is wrong, but is definatly interesting and is the outcome if disney does lose the mickey copyright - lots of things that look like Disney releases.
I remember when spiderman came out on DVD - there was a release of some old spidey cartoon on DVD about "Spiderman vs the Green Goblin" that had no pictures anywhere on it to indicate that it was a cartoon and not the recent movie.
yeah right as if thats going to happen any time soon to them or that
Someone used a super charged ray of static electricity on a pair of mice in my roleplaying game:
InterGalactic Bounty Hunter in 1990... (BTW someone is releasing a video game named that now, and I have it poor man's copywrighted-registered mail)
Rolled 1,1,1 on a 20 sided dice...
So they became parapallegic mice, with super intelligence.... They used robotic parts to create transportation, and schemed to seek revenge on the guy who did it in future episodes of the game.... Then when they realized he also helped them get intelligence, instead of killing him, they started to take over the universe.
One or two years down the line, Pinky and the Brain came out.
Theres only so many novel ideas out there that are original and artistic... Let alone copywrightable ideas in engineering and physics.
God spoke to me
Which is why you have to have a cutoff date on copyrights -- the origins of so much material is lost in the poorly documented past. What's new is that we've effectively fixed the cutoff date for all material late in the 19th century. So Hollywood gets to have it both ways: they can mine traditional literature for free material, but their own work (even their own interpretations of traditional literature!) are protected forever.
There are two particular instances that I find particularly bizarre. The first is the song "Happy Birthday" which is under copyright even though nobody knows who wrote the lyrics. (The music dates back to 1893.) So every time it's sung at a part... well, maybe that's "fair use". But it's a fact that you can't sing it on TV without paying royalties.
The other bizarre example is the Frank Capra classic, The Best Years of Our Lives. For various reasons, nobody bothered to renew the copyright on this one. That's why it got played to death every Christmas for so many years. Then all of sudden, Aaron Spelling informed everybody that you couldn't show the film without paying him royalties. How did he seize control of a film in the public domain? By buying the rights to the story it was based on, and also to a song played in the movie.
Perhaps if you really wanted to, you could challenge Spelling's right to collect royalties on Lives. But no one will: Spelling has deep pockets, and it'd be expensive to assert a moral principle here.
And the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that it's not about what's right and wrong. It's about who can afford justice!
Universal just bought SCO today for an undisclosed amount...
My journal has hot
"Hollywood has routinely benefitted from the expiration of copyright, despite their adamant pressure on Capitol Hill to extend copyright almost indefinitely."
This staement is somewhat naive. What you mean is that some people in Hollywood could take advantage of the works of other people in Hollywood, with whom the are competing against, if copyrights expired sooner. This means that company b benefits at the expense of company a. So, although Hollywood possibly did generate more revenue as a whole, company a got screwed out of its share of that revenue. Whether or not the current copyright limit is fair, the arguement should be stated better.
Vote for Pedro
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I suspect it is the way you phrased this rather than necessarily the concepts behind it.
Corporations and people that work in corporations don't act with continuity. There is no continuity of people, they certainly are more mobile in choosing employers than years ago. I would also dispute that there is continuity with people within corporations. Even those within a corporation rarely stay at the same job longer than 3 years. YMMV with different cultures, but given the above corporations *can't* act in a continuous fashion.
They act short term. Focus on Profits this year, sales this quarter, share price tomorrow. IMHO (yes, opinion this time), this is mutually exclusive with multi-year strategies.
Why do they worry about copyright expiration? Because the cash cows that make their profits this year, revenue this quarter and share price tomorrow are about to disappear.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
I suspect that wouldn't have any effect in my lifetime.
a) The laws would not be retrospective, ie anything in force today would have grandfather provisions for existing stuff.
b) Start the clock again. The nasty dude's have 50 years to get it extended again.
Maybe our children's, children's, children will look back at us with fond memories...
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
So, there are, in my opinion, far more reasons to prefer an extension of copyright
But the only reason you've given is, essentially, "because Disney can still profit from Mickey Mouse, and because if it became public domain, they'd lose its value as a commercial asset." And truth be told, that's exactly why it should lapse into the public domain. Disney has made plenty of money from its exclusive license on Mickey; that doesn't entitle them to make money on it in perpetuity.
And the public domain would benefit, in more ways than you've imagined. Let's say I wanted to put together an online history of animation, and wanted to stream video of those early cartoons in their entirety. The cost of licensing one of Disney's first cartoons alone would sink me before I'd even begun.
So what if a (gasp! horror!) porn company made "Mickey Moosecock"? The ability of more "legitimate" artists to make use of one of the most recognizeable symbols of American pop culture without having to get Disney's permission outweighs Disney's "right" to make money forever from one of its properties.
It's not like they aren't milking all their current properties for direct-to-video sequel after sequel. Let 'em make 20 fscking Lion King sequels if they want money -- it's time the Mouse belonged to the public.
Under the Berne convention the copyright term of foreign works lasts for the same time they are protected in the country of origin. Imagine Israel would enact a law similar to US congress, granting copyright in perpetuity. Imagine the law would extend to works of the past, like the various US copyright extensions, but infinitely. Now the state of Israel, in substitution of the original author if you want, could claim ownership of the Bible or Thora or whatever, including all derivative works and translations.
As a future IP lawyer and religious fanatic I can hardly tell how excited I am.
Hollywood isn't a bunch of new struggling studios anymore. They're the old guard. They'd rather have permanant copyright, thus being able to remake their own old stuff or license the rights from each other, while still preventing new companies from using it. It's part greed and part laziness. Free public domain stuff is more a threat to them now than a benefit.
In the 60s, there was a case involving a headshop poster that showed Disney characters doing various unwholesome things: Mickey was shooting IV drugs, and Minnie was turning tricks. When sued by Disney, the publishers argued that they had a first admendment right to satire, and that nobody could possible confuse their satire with a Disney product. I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall they one, after spending a bundle on lawyers.
The real issue is this: something popular that's sold as a monopoly is more profitable than that same something that's sold in an open market. Imagine a world where anybody could make a Mickey Mouse movie. With such a popular character, that would guarantee a lot of them. Some of them would be profitable, some of them wouldn't. But the profitable ones wouldn't be as profitable as Disney's existing material, and it wouldn't necessarily belong to Disney.
There's also the issue of overexposure. Disney deliberately takes their "classic" material out of circulation periodically, so people don't get tired of it. That wouldn't work if knock-off movies were being made every year.
Only profits are protected, at the very expensive of fostering creativity that the Constitution is supposed to protect.
Now wasn't that simple? Why can't Congress and the Supreme Court understand this?
Just for grins and giggles, try explaining this to your local representative and see what they really say about it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes, yes, the tales that Disney stole from the Bros. Grimm were in fact public domain folk tales from the first. Yes, they changed them, making them all pretty and full of cute anthropomorphic fluffy bunnies and dishwashing chipmonks.
None of this changes the fact that Disney selected these very tales because they were in the public domain and he could make free use of them as he willed and keep all the profits.
Perhaps the Brothers Grimm weren't the best example though. Are there any identifiable authors from whom Disney took works? Why yes, there are.
How about Rudyard Kipling? Heard of him? Victor Hugo, Carlo Collodi, Lewis Carrol, Prokofiev, R.L. Stevenson, Defoe, Washington Irving, J.M Barrie, Davey Crockett (Yes, Davey was an author), the list goes on, and on, and on.
Disney has made billions of dollars on the backs of identifiable authors whose works they simply took, for free.
The thing is none of these authors suffered by it (ok, some of them had been dead more than 50 years, but some of them hadn't) and Disney serves as a prime example of how *everyone* makes money by a reasonable copyright expiration period.
KFG
Not that it would make any difference. There's a similar principle that applies: Congress is only allowed to grant copyrights and patents for limited periods. One would think that extending the period every time it expires effectively negates this requirement. But in the Eldred v. Ashcroft decision (warning, big PDF file), the majority said otherwise. I suspect that they'll change their minds when Congress extends the expiration yet again, as I'm sure they will. But that's in the far future.
... copyrights are there so R&D is still profitable but extended copyrights can only create monopolisms and slowers the global evolution of any domain.
People on Slashdot can see consequences on inadequation of copyright length in software development. In a relatively new domain like computer science, their length is really too long, and conducts to ridiculous situations (SCO vs IBM) and to monopolistic situations.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Oops. I always confuse the Capra film with the William Wilder film that came out at the same time. Also a classic, by the way. Covers some of the same ground as the Capra movie, but it much less sentimental about it. I particularly admire its unflinching portrayal of a guy who loses both arms in the war.
You're saying that because Disney produced a movie on the lives of real, historical figures that anybody else who produces a movie on the same historical figures is fooling people?
What a bizarro world you live in.
Disney and Microsoft have gotten rich using the same business model: rip off other people's intellectual property, and then jealously guard it as your own.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It's definitely got to be a phrasing disagreement, because you both seem to be saying the same thing. Quarterly profits and weekly stock prices may be short term, but corporations are usually looking at maintaing a status quo while also striving for constant growth. It's an interesting situation in any case.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
I know, bad joke. But C'mon.. Sonny Bono.
I admire your dedication. Keep up the good work.
You'll have a hard time convincing me anyone is going to profit from The League of Extraordinary Gentleman (the movie, that is).
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
...has this lyric copyrighted:
"The man in the suit has just bought a new car.
With the profits he made on your dreams."
There is more, but I don't want anyone to sue here. Harry Fox, this is fair use, damnit, so F.U.!
One day M$ will be able to incorporate GNU/Linux code after (L)GPL copryright expire, no?
28 year was plenty. This crap is proof that there is no freedom Amerikkka except for the rich and powerful.
The Dream is dead and the Empire has won.
They also care about keeping you from making any money, unless, of course, they are in turn making more money off of your actions than you are.
It's about control. They (the coporate masters) interpet any oportunity that you might encounter/take/create as a threat unless it is an oportunity that they offered to you (for a fee) themselves.
They want more than your money, they want your loyalty, your adoration, your undying love for the crap that they offer and want to punish you if you dare to try to do it yourself or look elsewhere.
They want you to envy them, they want you to want to be like them, because every whore wants to think that everyone else is a whore too.
They offer you employment, they offer you money, they offer you Big Macs at $2.99 and an hour and a half of questionable entertainment for $10.50. They offer you a mortgage, a car loan, partially garaunteed government backed tuition loans, credit cards, time share condos at ski resorts even though you hate skiing.
They want to license things to you instead of sell them. They want you to borrow, lease, rent instead of buy. They want to own all that you live in, drive, watch, wear, read, listen to, or enjoy.
They want to own you. They offer you crap and call it Creme Brule. They destroy the good in everything they encounter. They hate that something good might be available for free (think SCO, Microsoft, etc)
They'll shoot themselves in the foot to keep you out of the game, which is why they'd rather extend copyright indefinately. It's not about making movies, or entertaining you, or art. It's about owning every last thing imaginable.
Including you.
Read, L
I don't know if J. Breyer will still be on the bench then, and it was he who really understood why Congress shouldn't be able to do what they did.
Even once Justice Breyer has left the bench, his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft is still on record. Even the opinion of the Court conditions its upholding of the Bono Act on the fact that it has not recognized an unconstitutional pattern in the term extensions; if Congress enacts a hypothetical third major extension, the Supreme Court might find evidence of such a pattern.
Will I retire or break 10K?
although given the current term, you'd be long dead, also throwing a wrench into your ability to stop such later use
Ever heard of a "last will and testament"? It's how Gershwin bans not-100%-African-descent people from performing songs from Porgy and Bess in public, even after he is long gone.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If I sing a song I uniquely composed and wrote once in public, I have copyright on that song and that performance.
Not if you have ever listened to the radio. Copyright law states that if you copy a substantial amount from an existing copyrighted song, you infringe the copyright in the song. Precedents state that access + substantial similarity = copying. Access includes having heard a song even once on the radio, even if you forget that you have heard it by the time you write your own song ( Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs ). Substantial similarity has been found with as few as six notes of one song matching another song's main motive, which statistically is all but certain to happen. So if you hear a song even once on the radio, and you unwittingly compose a similar song years later, you break the law.
Details in my journal.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It only cuts us the consumer and small aspiring creatives.
When all of the corporations finish merging into three major megaconglomerations (if they haven't already), they will own basically the collective works of mankind and will sell and trade those rights easily between them. They have everything in the public domain already plus continuous rights or easy access to almost anything they helped publish in any medium in the last 3/4 of the Twentieth Century (read everything). So the only possible edge that could have cut them dulled some years ago. We will still be able to be creative in the future. We will just need corporate permission to profit from it.
It's the government at fault here, not private companies.
So how are voters supposed to stop it? Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has added a plank to balance copyright between authors and consumers, and no other U.S. political party has a snowball's chance of gaining even a plurality in Congress.
Will I retire or break 10K?
all they have to do is get the EU to extend again, since harmonization seems to be a valid reason for extensions.
Would the Supreme Court still find harmonization a valid reason even if the EU enacts a statutory perpetual copyright?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I love it! One of the problems that the article touches upon is that the royalties, etc, will go on for 70 years... That means by the 60th year, there will be 3 generations of descendants that will be fighting over the royalties of this money!!! Imagine how many great-great-great grandchildren there will be that will be fighting over the money! The lawyers will be the ones making the most money, that's for sure!
Isn't the great? They try so hard to keep control of their copyrights until decades after they die, presumably to help their descendants, but we know what will actually happen: greed will overtake them all and cause the family to be torn apart! I love it, what great revenge!
I have a friend whose grandmother passed away, leaving a rather large cottage which is being shared between her several children and their children. Already, the fights that are brewing because they can't have access to this cottage is causing family strife, and we're talking about a stupid $20,000 cottage!
Imagine how many fights there will be over potentially millions of dollars for the royalties for some of the stuff out there, like June Rowland/Harry Potter, or Stephen King, etc.
On the flip side, just imagine how much stuff Disney will find itself dealing with on a yearly basis that has fallen into the public domain and they can derive from.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
It seems to me like they have plenty to gain (more material in the public domain that they can freely derive from) and little to lose (even with 9x$1 registrations, do they actually have over 112 million works that they're going to register)?
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Mickey Mouse Condom
If a large body of works in the public domain is good, and we therefore want to encourage artists to create and publish works, why is it so popular here to illegaly steal music?
I admit that the prices of music are outrages by the distributors, but the way to deal with that is to create introduce competition.
We should always encourage people to create works, so one day we can create products like MAME that are based on the creative works of others without breaking the law.
$$$$$....... Big business wants copyrights when it benefits them..and doesn't want them when it benefits THEM! Disney is one of the biggest hypocrites going...but with enough $$$ to take some and grease the palms of Congress, the $$$$$ tree will just keep making $$$$$ whenever it's shaken (not stirred)!
In Volume 2 of LOEG, characters like Rupert the Bear and Mr Toad (from Wind in the Willows) are referenced, but they are surely covered by copyright. I don't know if Moore got permission, or if he's just hoping no-one will sue, or what.
Although I guess this particular IP dispute would be "passing off" rather than copyright (or patent or trade secret) and there may be different laws in the UK/US about that.
Mickey Mouse is not really protected by copyright. Cartoons featuring Mickey Mouse are. Mickey himself is a trademark. Even if Steamboat Willie and other old Mickey cartoons slipped into the public domain, you'd have a hard time putting the famous mouse in your cartoon without a big battle with Disney lawyers.
And while the article points out that Disney made money with cartoons based on public domain characters, it fails to note that many of its most successful franchises use characters that they have had to (and in some cases continue to) pay royalties for: Tarzan, Winnie the Pooh, Mary Poppins, etc. So, while the long copyrights (and trademarks) have had impact on the cost of creating new works with others' IP, it has not prevented new, successful works from being made. It makes me wonder if the system is really as flawed as everyone says? And if the costs of licensing somebody else's work is too expensive, doesn't that inspire people to create original works? Wasn't that the whole idea? When you see Edgar Rice Burroughs's heirs still collecting royalties for Tarzan, doesn't that inspire you to dream up your own original works?
I'm not sure a nearly-infinite series of derivative works was a concept envisioned by the original inventors of copyright law. Sure, an author might crank out several stories or novels about a world or set of characters during his or her career, but who would have guessed that corporate owned franchises could continue to innovate based on ideas they've milked for decades and decades?
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Congress is perfectly within their rights keep on extending copyright protection. After all, who would congress listen to if they didn't listen to the big corporations who benefit from this sort of thing. Not to say that I disagree with their direction at all. Quite the opposite. In fact, I'm still not satisfied with the law as it stands. I have all kinds of great original ideas that I have shared with my closest friends and family members. They all agree with me and think they're great. But frankly, if I only have control over my ideas until 70 years after I'm dead, I don't see the point of moving forward. So come on congress, give me and the millions of other Americans out there some incentive to be creative.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
But only in the UK.
Copyright term and ownership differences like this are exactly what the DVD Forum designed the region lockout system on DVD Video titles to enforce. If I make a movie based on Peter Pan, I have to pay royalties to GOSH on any copies that could potentially be sold in the UK. In order to prevent having to pay royalties on every single copy sold anywhere, wouldn't I have to design my product such that it is unlikely that non-UK-cleared copies are sold in the UK?
See Project Gutenberg for a more detailed explanation.
"For the present, this edition of Peter Pan is restricted to the United States, and is not to be for use or included in any storage or retrieval system in any country, other than the United States of America." Do Gutenberg mirrors have to block all IP addresses within .uk from accessing Peter Pan?
Will I retire or break 10K?
You've mixed up copyrights and patents, but your point is still valid.
If Disney made investments in new cartoon characters (besides your typical Mickey, Donald, Goofy, etc), then there is much risk involved (it could fail financially, critics would hate it, the company's image would be stained forever). Unfortunately, with the extension of copyrights, Disney execs could sit on their fat asses, and continue getting rich off Walt's hard work from the 1920s-30s. There's now no more motivation for Disney to try to adapt anymore.
It's really sad, considering the fact that Walt Disney himself had experimented with several other characters before his success with Mickey. Ironically, it would be the greedy coorporations that killed off Alice in Cartoonland and Oswald that Rabbit because they owned or abused the intellectual property that Walt had created.
It's ironic to see the current Disney company exploit intellectual property that really isn't theirs, but rather the dead founder's (Walt passed away in 1966, yet Mickey Mouse is still property of the company for some time to come).
Sigs are for losers
But my opinion is not here at stake. If I were in favour of not having any copyright on any subject it wouldn't make a difference here, would it?
I was trying to take Disneys point of view. I don't make any money any time someone uses Mickey. I'm not in any way associated to Disney. But Disney is (really?)! They are the ones who benefit with it, and it's they who benefit with the longer copyright not me.
For me personally it doesn't make sense to have copyright last more than 50 years. I'd probably even say a smaller value. I'd like to see what others would do with my invention, while not having to hope for life after life to see it. I'd like to see how successful others where on using my stuff. But that's me, not talking in a "money only" point of view.
Today Disney won't probably use Mickey Mouse for anything else. So, what they can do with it is get more money. And, as they are a company, money is a big part of the equation. And that was basically the point of view I tried to focus.
Other point of view that I wanted to make and that I might have forgot was the fact that although globally Hollywood might benefit with the expiracy of copyright, individually, a certain company (the former copyright owner) might lose a lot of money. And that's what drives this all. It's not Hollywood that's being stupid. This equation isn't only about Hollywood.
MPAA Prez Jack Valenti, treasured friend of Slashdotters everywhere, has gone on the record the idea that the public domain actually hurts film restoration, since if the work is free, who'd sink money into costs that, by his estimate, they'd have no chance of recouping (pitting "full price" against $3 DVDs).
Of course, the proof that this type of thing wouldn't necessarily happen is very easy to find, with the restoration of Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Here is a film that has made the rounds since the dawn of video in smudgy, scratched multi-generation dupe prints, but a group of archivists and digital restoration wizards put together what may be the definitive version in quality and possible completeness. I get the oddest feeling that was the primary motivation for their work, although making it turn a profit would be a bonus.
Of course, it could be said of the most recent effort that the outcome of the DVD sales will weigh heavily on the future of full-on PD restorations, but people who actually care about quality (and their eyes and ears) will usually seek out the quality product. Anyway, I've heard far too many horror stories about the "best" print (or for that matter, the best tape of a song) in a studio vault not being very good at all, so a long-term rights lockdown isn't an automatic guarantee of quality control.
--DocL
--If it wasn't for half of the people in this country, the other half would be all of them -- Col. Stoopnagle
While I have no problem if politicians decide that IP laws need to be changed in order to inspire more ideas/creativity/inventions, I do have a problem with extending the laws as a result of lobbying efforts of big businesses. I don't feel the politician is at fault for this, as they are seeking funding for campaigns, and might feel a higher obligation to upholding moral laws than economic laws. I also don't feel that big businesses are at fault for lobbying for an extension as they want to succeed in their area of business (which creates new jobs / keeps jobs already made / and provides quality products and services).
I think a business should have no influence over these laws when the business is about to take a loss as a result of their IP expiring. Why don't we change the law such that big businesses would not have much of an incentive to lobby for a change in the law unless it was out of good will for the economy (not for its own gain)? Politicians won't change the law unless someone is lobbying (and paying) for it, or they feel it is needed.
What would happen if we passed a law that stated that any extension to an IP law would not affect any IP that was less than 10 years from expiration or has exceeded more than half the time originally allotted for its protection. A business would spend a ton of money lobbying to extend protection that it could lose in a year, but it wouldn't spend that much lobbying for an extension that wouldn't provide any protection for another 30 years.
I'm white. And Roscoe's is great. Racist people crack me up.
Cotton pickin' blackie is the best you could come up with?
I guess you're insecure about your tiny penis. I bet you've replied to a Enlargement Email or two.
Welcome to the 21st century dipshit. Maybe you can join VladTheFag for some circle jerking fun.
William Wyler
Exposing the Happy Birthday Story
[This is my own story. In case kuro5hin is 404, for convenience I am reposting it in reply to your reference.]
Exposing the Happy Birthday story:
An editorial by J. Byron, May 2003, rev. June 2003
In this article, I attempt to answer three questions: 1 - What is that song Good Morning to All, and how does it relate to Happy Birthday to You? 2 - Is the melody to Happy Birthday to You public domain? 3 - Are the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You also public domain? There are many references to Happy Birthday on the Web. Most warn you of the copyright claim on it, and that the current owners rabidly defend it. Many of these "editorials" do not tell you about the song Good Morning to All - and the few that do, don't tell you about its undeniable legal status. Is this deliberate, or just ignorance of the facts? I don't know. Two such examples are an article at Attaché Magazine and the commonly cited article at snopes.com. In addition, some articles may unintentionally present inaccurate information. An article posted at lawyers.com incorrectly states that Good Morning to All was written in 1895 but unpublished. That assertion is untrue, and makes an important legal difference.
There is a 1935 copyright registration for Happy Birthday, but the melody Good Morning to All was formally published in 1893 as part of a collection, registered in October 1893, and is public domain by U. S. statute. (you just can't use the "Happy Birthday" lyrics in public without paying) However, one site listed in this editorial claims possession of some early publications that nullify the copyright to even the lyrics.
Good Morning to All [a.k.a. the birthday melody] included in:
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, pub. 1893
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, revised ed., pub. 1896
[and apparently other pre-1923 editions]
Words: Patty Hill (-1946) Music: Mildred Hill (-1916)
Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.
The song Good Morning to All - from which Happy Birthday was allegedly derived - is free to use (words and music) by U. S. federal statute. (Published before 1923, and furthermore published before 1909) Take a look at Lolly Gasaway's PD chart, or Cornell University's expanded chart. That version of the birthday melody may suffice for some people - instrumentalists in particular. Also note that titles cannot be protected by copyright, and no unique or proper names are involved. Naming an instrumental CD track Good Morning to All a.k.a. Happy Birthday to You should be legal. (The law of other countries might affect the song's status outside the U. S.)
Allegedly, after the publication of Good Morning to All in the Hill's songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Robert Coleman, and others, published the "birthday" lyrics with the Good Morning to All melody. In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill family allegedly won a 1934 lawsuit for infringement. In 1935 the Hill family registered the "Happy Birthday" copyright mentioned endlessly on the Web. (Which does not affect today's public domain status of Good Morning to All.) Two sources for Good Morning to All sheet music are PD Info (a small studio, that also sells sheet music reprints) and