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?

Comments

Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney makes it's money from redoing fairy tales. Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book. If the current "forever" copyright regime had been in place when those stories were first written Disney would not have been able to take and make them its own.

Re:Disney

[turbidostato]

"Part (b)'s "limited times" is not necessary to achieve part (a)'s "progress of science and useful arts," "

No, it isn't (while it is arguably). Nevertheless that's the Constitution's wording so, unless you change it, as I already said, that's it what it is.

"Both copyright law and patent laws' "limited times" are designed screw the working class creative people"

Maybe, but not the way you seem to imply. The problem is on the legal definition of "authors and inventors" since, as of now, it extends to whomever they sell their copy-rights.

"It's designed to prevent the poor but brilliant creative people from becoming very rich"

An affirmation without substantiation. How is that the case?

"You still have to pay for cost+profit to buy a simple invention like a paperclip, long after its inventor is dead"

No, you don't. You pay cost+profit to *produce* a paperclip, not for its shape and ingeniousness which are, long ago, freely available. And then, you are confusing patents with copyrights. Patents extend just 20 years from description full stop. It is copyrights which go "for as long as the author lives and then more".

And then again, main problem with current copyright laws is not the copy of an item on itself but that it goes against the "promotion of progress" clause as it limits the ability of others of building on top of what's already available. As it's been already told, if Disney were entered the market under the copyright laws Disney itself promotes, it would have been impossible for it to success as no Cinderella, Whitesnow, Pinoccio... would have been possible -and the arts would have suffered as those films are in fact worthy contributions built on top of others'.

Are subtitles available...

[Harold Halloway]

...because this summary makes almost no sense without them. Someone makes a commentary track for a film and then makes another 13 years later and that's sticking it to the Copyright Man, is that it? ...mmkay...