I’m just wanting consistency. If modern copyright holders can extend their profiteering period, then it’s fair to reward the descendants or the society where these things or other similar things emerged. And in some cases no-one was rewarded, probably in the vast majority of public domain works. In such cases, maybe people do need to be rewarded for consistency’s sake.
Nobody paid the people the brothers Grim “stole” from. They didn’t steal anything anyway, they wrote the old tales down and therefore provided a service to others. Maybe those peasants should be compensated, but we can’t do that anymore, because all of them are dead. They can’t innovate any more, and they can’t use any money we could give them. I guess we could give money to their descendants, but who are we going to get the money from, and how do we know who wrote the tale in the first place (and therefore who we should give the money to)? It’s not a very practical option.
But original ideas don’t exist. Many of the fairy tales that Disney “ripped off” were created over a huge span of time by many, many different storytellers. Whoever created the original tale probably created something totally different that bears almost no resemblance to the modern Disney version. The tale came to life and took shape through multiple retellings. It doesn’t belong to any one person; all of the storytellers worked together over decades or centuries to make the tale something worthwhile. So yeah, retelling a tale is hard and important work. But it’s not so important that the tale then becomes yours alone, instead of everybody’s.
It’s definitely unfair, and I think we should go back a system that is more like the way things were before, when storytelling was a much more communal activity. Disney shouldn’t be able to hold copyrights over stories that are seventy years old in their modern incarnation and 100’s of years old as folk tales.
I think a short period of protection would be good, like I said, especially since it’s so much easier to make copies these days. The bard in 1100 was performing a service that took skill, spreading things around the only way people could. Disney is also performing a service by making movies and tie-in stuff like the theme parks, and I wouldn’t want to see that stuff go away because it stopped being profitable. But the service they are performing shouldn’t give them complete control over what others do with the stories once they are released. Stories are supposed to belong to everybody, even if those who write them or record them need to be compensated for their hard work.The way I see things, is that these laws are gimmicked by forces in power which are parasites on culture. It’s in their vested interest to uphold these laws. Maybe there should be no copyright or patent protection at all. I am willing to bet we’d get at least the same level of innovation. After all people somehow survived and did well before this whole thing.The world did not start with the Berne Convention or the printing press.
I understand that, but it’s not immoral to not make things out of copyrighted works. Even if I disagree with a law, I can’t just disregard it. Of course I’d disobey a law that demanded that I sin, and of course I wouldn’t sin just because the sin was legal. But this situation isn’t either one of those things. This is “I think this thing is acceptable, but the law says it isn’t.”
I’m using the lingo.
Of course they did not steal. You steal if you remove something. Copying is not stealing, although many people think it is.Their descendants are not dead. You don’t believe in righting wrongs? And you don’t believe in inheritance laws or the principle of inheritance?
Their descendants can innovate. Their country or community can benefit with the additional revenue. The people who stole from them continue to benefit from these works. These people should be allowed to continue to do that, but they should pay.
Then Disney should give back all the profits from Snow White etc? Or do they still get to keep these?
Sure. But then either we apply that to everything or we don’t apply it at all. What we’re doing now is saying “idea x is original, you get 70 years to profit from it” (you also market yourself well and have mouse everyone knows); “idea y is old and boring and quite common. It’s not easy to determine where it originated although we can look at how Disney (and others) sourced these ideas and how they took advantage of their folk popularity” etc. We’re applying this arbitrarily based on some sort of subjective criteria. Criteria which the people with power/vested interest insist on using.
Well Disney is just one example. This is an international issue. Of course, I’m happy to let companies have 1000 years if they wish. If people or moral philosphers decide a business should profit for 1,000 years from an idea by governmental guarantee - OK. But then extend that to everyone else and also extend that to works this business is basing its’ business on.
If Disney can’t sell Snow White, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast etc. on DVD anymore because of copies, which I doubt would cut their sales entirely, then they can sell other merchandise. You can’t copy a Snow White Doll. That is you can copy it in a Chinese factory but it won’t be the holy one blessed by the Disney CEO and with pixie dust all over it. Likewise a ride from the company which drew Mickey Mouse first? Of course fans of MM will go on that, rather than some copy.
Obviously such things would continue to sell, but the demand is not enforced artificially. Rie’s talent and hard work do pay off and lead to her popularity. She can peddle her autographed pictures of Iori Minase on Ebay. No one is saying you must disregard laws and break them. What we’re saying is that saying X is right because law Y says X is so, is not a moral reason, not always.
by itself.OK. We’re on the same page there.I’m using the lingo.
I would say not compensating them is consistent, actually. What Disney did wasn’t immoral any more than people copying from Disney is immoral, since the tales were very old and had already been passed around to many people. I don’t think we should have to compensate those who came long before us for ideas that we used, since the ideas are neither theirs alone nor ours alone. Anything that ties ideas down to a single individual or group is detrimental and stops new stories from being created or coming to prominence.
But if our goal is shortening that period of time so that other people can reinterpret it sooner, then nobody would be compensating anybody for simply using ideas. And I think that’s how it should be.
But then nobody will ever be able to create anything without figuring out and compensating everybody else who ever inspired them. It’ll make it exponentially harder for anybody to create anything, and that is a very negative consequence.
I wholeheartedly agree! And that’s why I think that all of the major creators will be just fine if we lessen the time it takes something to enter the public domain. I’m mainly thinking of minor creators with the 20-year buffer period; I want to give things like webcomics and novels a chance to take off and be successful.I don’t know about you, but I’d rather go to a genuine Miyazaki theme park than a Chinese copy. I’d rather get a genuine autographed poster with Rie Kugimiya’s signature than one signed by a nameless fan or otaku.
I don’t really get it. I thought we had to obey just laws? :ehh:No one is saying you must disregard laws and break them. What we’re saying is that saying X is right because law Y says X is so, is not a moral reason, not always.
So for the sake of discussion, saying “ah but Copyright is protected for 70 years so sucks to be you, haha”, is not valid.
Of course I’m not saying you’re using these exact words or ideas. I’m using this for humour of course.
maybe i should have read the entire article but, this one says that an useless law is no true law:
Copyright is artificial, but so are the age of consent and the precise year to which it is fixed; the entire system of longitude; the division of the year into 12 months with some months having 31, others 30, and one having 28 unless it’s every fourth year, when it will have 28; certain boundaries of many countries and provinces/states; the idea that certain professions have to be licensed, such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers; and the FDA’s guidelines for acceptable levels defects in food. That doesn’t mean these things aren’t justifiable, but they are artificial, or largely so.
I was over here thinking that I had to change my profile pic, my computer/PS3 background, etc. because it was all downloaded from wallpaper sites, but then I saw that it was only illegal when you use it for something besides personal use. I gotta slow down when I read…I admit, I sometimes do wonder about just how far we should go to obey these laws. I recognize that obeying the law is something we are supposed to do, provided it does not controvert our faith, but I have a hard time feeling too bad about watching an unlicensed movie clip (but not the whole movie) on YouTube or sharing a meme that uses a copyrighted image as part of it on Facebook.
Honestly, I think fairuse laws cover memes, as they are made “transformative” by the message they impart.
Honestly, I think, generally, fairuse laws cover memes, as they are made quite “transformative” by the message they impart.
I have always believe that we should let our conscience be our guide. I miss the old days of shareware, when I could just download stuff and occasional send in five bucks for the stuff I decided to use. Any business on the internet that is making money, I understand we have to be fair, and they in turn need to pay for product. I have never sweated anything for personal use and always paid for stuff that I know am supposed to pay for, or should pay for.
I assume this applies to music too - you can find lots and lots of songs uploaded by users. Surely the record companies know. I assume they get their royalties, funded by the little ads they make you watch periodically. If not it would get taken down pretty quickly.