disney and copyrights, part 2

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

disney and copyrights, part 2

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:05 am

well... as a follow up to the old thread about disney and copyrights, disney has succeeded in extended copyright another twenty years:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st ... copyrights

slashdot.org has some interesting comments here. to summarize what those against the copyright extension said, it doesn't do anything to spur creativity, which is the whole reason copyrights exist in the first place, erodes away our freedom of speech, and it will drastically reduce the diversity of works. to use an example of that last one... in 90 years, no one will be able to read a CD. for one, pressed CD media (you shouldn't be buying burnable CD-R's, hehe) only lasts for, at most, 25 years, and for two, given current trends, CD drives will be obsolete in 10-20 years. Film ages, paper ages... everything ages. By the time the copyright expires, it won't matter, as it will be, for all essential purposes, gone, unless it had some sort of profound influence on society, which save for a very select few things, just isn't gonna happen.

anyways, to continue the summarization, obscurity is a bigger threat than copyright theft, Disney is being hypocritical, too. "The Little Mermaid" was written by Hans Christian Andersen. Disney took the story, mangled it a bit, didn't credit the original author, and now protects it like a rabid bulldog. Same with "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". Written by Victor Hugo. He's not credited either. "Pocahontas" was a (more or less) true story. "Mulan" is based on a Chinese legend. "Atlantis" is an adaptation of "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" (and draws many compelling comparisons to "Nadia: Secret of Blue Water"). "The Lion King" was a direct ripoff of "Kimba, The White Lion", an original work done by Osamu Tezuka. "Cinderella", "Snow White", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Sleeping Beauty" are all widely known faerie tales. Further, if J.R.R. Tolkien had decided to kick in his right to copyright, there would be no fantasy genre. If Jules Vernes had decided to enforce his copyright, there would be no sci-fi. obviously, this wouldn't do anyone any good. Besides, while J.R.R. Tolkien may get the rights that are due him, why should his children? if they want to own some lucritive copyright, they could always right there own book. and anyways, J.R.R. Tolkien and Jules Vernes are derrivitive, too. ask anyone who's ever had to write an english paper - they have to find such similarities - such derrivations. anyways, why shouldn't those who benefited from public domain have to contribute back to the very people from which they based their work on?

whew. i've only read half of the posts on slashdot.org, heh. i can't find a single post for copyright extension, either. of course, then again, slashdot.org isn't known for its pro corporate stance, heh.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Jan 17, 2003 12:50 am

to continue what the summirization :):

often times, copyrights are now granted to corporations. when Philo Farnsworth invtented the TV, RCA pretty much stole his invention, and took credit for it. this just goes to show that the lone individual doesn't have the power to enforce copyrights, patents, or whatever. however, companies do, and as companies are recognized as people, from a legal standpoint, they can file for patents / copyrights, etc. and while copyright was intended to last the lifetime of the person who invented it, corporations don't really have lifetimes, persay. In fact, the oldest company around is almost 750 years old. the oldest company in great britain is over 500 years old, and here are four companies which have been around since before the revolutionary war.

the only group of people who will be losing hundreds of millions of dollars will be the american public - not disney. everything made in the 1920's and earlier was made with the full expectation that it would expire in 20 or so years. the US fought a war over whether or not such things should stay in the family or not.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:42 am

Err... I think I disagree with most of your original post. I think Disney should indeed retain ownership of Mickey Mouse because its their company logo.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:46 pm

well, these are new, different, and imho, better points than i made in my original post, but... i still don't think the fact that it's in their logo makes much of a difference - i mean, what if disney wanted to make beethovens fur elise it's theme song? does that mean beethovens fur elise should be removed from the public domain? no. and does it harm beethoven in any way if they do? no. in fact, it would normally give beethoven more publicity than he already had.. unless, of course, disney plagerized. of course, in this day and age, people seem to be confussed as to the differences between plagerism and copying, which is the only reason i think disney won. people think that copying is a sin worse than death. in fact, in egypt, it is, heh. the RIAA committs vigilante justice, seizing computers, arresting people, etc, but kids who plagerize just get a slap on the wrist? something obviously is screwed up here, heh. of course, schools don't help - they call cheating copying. no. it's plagerism. normally, i wouldn't mind, though, as people know what you're talking about either way, but... since there is so much confussion over copying and plagerism, i think they *should* start calling it what it really is, and not what people will understand it to be.

i mean, *normally* copying of obsolete stuff amounts to free publicity. of course, America isn't known for its smashing wisdom in these things... i mean, we did have to recount ballots because people didn't know how to punch a hole in a card with a hole puncher, or something, did we not?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests