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."
What's interesting is with their 100 year copy rights, disney coudln't have made thier rip-off of the brothers Grimms' Snow White without paying royalities to the Grimms' descendants.
..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.
I mean, only one OTHER than the fact that the media companies could and would spend BILLIONS to prevent it...
The United States government has signed numerous treaties (including the one mentioned on the Eldred page).
It would be difficult (although not impossible) for the U.S. to extricate itself from these treaties without significant damage to our already lagging credibility.
Otherwise, I'm all for it. Go ahead, lobby Congress, sign the petition. It might have some impact. eventually.
Good Luck,
-- Fareq
GameSpy recently ran a feature called The 25 Dumbest Moments In Gaming. The Universal vs. Nintendo infringement suit made it to number 20. They discuss it here.
Hee-hee. Dying tickles!
> No, they are (and should be) perfectly balanced
so were they not "perfectly balanced" in the past when copyright had a term of 28 years?
Music for example lives and always has lived of variations on earlier themes. But if in 100 years someone writes a piece that picks up some theme of say Jackson's Thriller, there is a good chance some great-grandson of Michael is going to come out and sue him for copyright infringement....
I understand the point of having a fixed term copyright, to reward the author for his work. How this could possibly necessitate the extension of copyright 70n years after his death, I can not follow...
Ponxx
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?
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."
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.