Slashdot Mirror
Deadmau5 Accuses Disney of Pirating His Music
An anonymous reader writes After Disney objected to musician Joel Zimmerman [aka Deadmau5]'s trademark application in the U.S. (his logo is already properly trademarked in many other countries), a battle of trademarks and copyrights ensued. Apparently, Disney was (URL has since been disabled, as per DMCA law requires) hosting a video containing a remix of music which Zimmerman claims ownership of. Not only that, but the Deadmau5 logo was prominently displayed next to said video. The mouse fight was on and a few hours ago Deadmau5 retaliated with a rather surprising counter attack. As it turns out, Disney is hosting a Deadmau5 video on their website, without permission. "Disney prominently features the deadmau5 Mark next to the Infringing Video. implying a non-existent endorsement by Zimmerman," the letter reads. "Again. we are unaware of any license allowing you the right to reproduce, distribute or otherwise exploit the deadmau5 Mark or to exploit Zimmerman's name and likeness in connection with same." At the time of writing Disney hasn't complied with the request, but it seems that they have no other option than to comply. Whether it will change anything in their stance towards the DJ's mouse ear trademark application is doubtful though.
yes I know, I was simply making a joke. his work is actually damn good, but the idea of going to watch a dj perform to me is just kind of strange.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The winning side: Lawyers!
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
To fight Disney on anything mouse related is just dumb
What???? So as Disney is the biggest, baddest mouse then noone should fight them?
What if disney decided they wanted to license mousetraps or pest control companies?
Trademark law generally allows entities in different areas to have similiar trademarks as long as they are non overlaping.
Fighting them (although because of their size will be difficult) should be encouraged.
Ignoring for a moment that Mickey Mouse should be public domain by now, allowing companies blanket use
of generic things like "the mouse", "windows", "the like button", "the buy it now button", etc... is a quick way to have
megacorporations eliminate what little remains of competition.
And Disney is screwing everyone alright by lobbying for the copyright extension from 2000 to 2020, new stuff entering into public domain frozen and suspended for 20 years, and the last automatically public domain material is stuck at 1923, for 20 years, and I can sit here twirl my thumbs waiting for that. Because of Mickey Mouse, I can't freely read scientific stuff published in 1924, like organic chemistry things, or even vacuum tube things. Fuck Disney. If it were up to Disney and the bloodsuckers like them, intellectual property management firms, they'd modify copyright law to have perpetual copyright, or practically perpetual. But the fact is, that the principle still stands, that copyright is only temporary, and eventually everything enters the public domain, even if Disney has succeeded in lobbying to pervert the laws to make copyright last practically forever, or almost forever. The original copyright term in the US was 14 years, renewable to 28 years total. Eventually we'll have copyright that lasts "only" 1325 years, and then I will really need a lot of patient thumb twirling before something finally enters public domain. As long as we keep the principle, that intellectual property is ultimately public domain, and private only temporarily, it's all good.
Agree. They should be fought. Their copyright extension act is unconstitutional as it violates equal protection of laws. However, the oligarchical collectivists enjoy total control over the laws in the USSA Police state.
Deadmouse is, however, an un-original riff ripping repetitive douche and would be a bad rallying point for this cause.
A good treatment of US crappyright law is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Generally totally favors drug, software and media companies and screws everyone else.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Question is, how do we win round 2 .. which is coming soon. Works start falling out of copyright in 2019, Disney will and other corps will move to protect their monopolies. How can we stop that? Public action stopped things like SOPA.
The term "intellectual property" is I believe a misnomer. There is first of all no innate right to intellectual property. The right to own a copyright is no different than the right to drive on the roads, you have to be given the right by the government on the basis of meeting certain requirements. This is very different from a fundamental or innate right. You have an innate right to free speech, it is not something the government gives you ..it's something you are born with. For example, if you own a physical object, you have the innate right not to have that object taken from you. But the US founding fathers saw that a person had no such innate right when it comes to inventions and art. Ideas are not your property once you describe them. That is why the constitution says that such monopolies on ideas should be granted by Congress *ONLY* IF IT SPURS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USEFUL ARTS. It is very different from freedom of speech, which you have regardless of the effect on society, a person has no such innate right to monopolize their own inventions and art.
According to the constitution Congress has the right .. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
According to that text, it's clear the current Supreme Court is shirking its responsibility by allowing excessive copyright and patent terms. Excessive copyright terms don't meet the fundamental constitutional requirement of advancing the useful arts and sciences. Disney made a lot of money by taking advantage of the expired copyrights of traditional stories such as sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast etc. I mean even The Lion King is a retelling of Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Did Disney compensate Shakespeare for stealing his story??? If Shakespeare's estate still owned the copyright of Hamlet, Disney would not have been able to make Hamlet. This is clearly proof that the useful arts and sciences are being hindered by excessive copyright terms. The first US copyright laws had only a few years in length .. and that was in a time where it was much harder to market one's work throughout the country and make enough money in a short time.