Slashdot Mirror
New 'Lupin III' Commentary Track Celebrates The Glories Of Ignoring Copyrights (terrania.us)
In 2004, film critic Roger Ebert "realized that auteurs weren't the only ones who had things to say about movies, and suggested that experts in other fields or even just fans of the movies could create MP3 commentary tracks to discuss their favorite films, which could then be downloaded and played alongside them." This inspired Slashdot reader #14,247 to produce his own commentary on Hayao Miyazaki's first movie, Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro -- and 13 years later, to release a new commentary track celebrating the film's 35th anniversary. Robotech_Master writes:
Among other things, it offers proof that excessive copyright really harms creativity by restricting the uses people are able to make of prior art -- by showing what can happen when people get away with ignoring copyright and creating anyway. Not only were Lupin III and Cagliostro effectively inspired as "fanfic" of characters and works that had come before, many of those characters and works were effectively fanfic themselves -- and Cagliostro in turn inspired parts of a number of other works that came afterward, including a couple by Disney.
Anyone else have a favorite example of a movie that bends the rules of copyright law?
Anyone else have a favorite example of a movie that bends the rules of copyright law?
It might make a little more sense distilled into this article, which I wrote for another blog afterward to discuss the matter.
Effectively, the original Maurice Leblanc Arsène Lupin stories borrowed Sherlock Holmes, much to Conan Doyle's annoyance. Subsequently, manga writer Monkey Punch based Lupin III on the Leblanc stories without permission, much to the Leblanc estate's later annoyance. (He was able to get away with it because Japan didn't honor trade copyrights at the time, and the Leblanc estate didn't even find out until years later.) Castle of Cagliostro drew on the Leblanc stories and the Lupin III franchise, and a number of other works, and inspired countless other works that borrowed from it in return.
And it never would have happened if the rights holders had been able to shut Leblanc and Monkey Punch down.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
"Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?"
I will answer from a USA point of view (despite me not being USA citizen myself. The argument can be generalized, but I find the USA example makes for a magnificent example, both because of its clarity and high visibility).
Because the USA Constitution doesn't enact real state rights "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."
That means:
1) This should be enacted for as long as it secures the goal it was created for: if it doesn't promote the progress of science and useful arts, then it is unconstitutional.
2) If it goes beyond the constitutional mandate, by doing it by other ways than securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, then it is also unconstitutional.
3) If it secures those rights for anything else than limited times, then it is also unconstitutional.
Of course you don't need to agree with those terms and you could call for an amendment for the constitution but, in the meantime, that's it what it is.