Copyright law and fraternal correction

[edwest2]

I can’t. It would violate copyright, even after all these decades.

Okay, if you want specifics, a design patent is 14 years. A drug patent is 20 years. A copyright is 120 years or life plus 70 years. Copyright was initial for 14 or 28 years. So yes, I think copyright laws have been driven by corporate greed and stifle the creativity they were supposed to encourage. I also think a new AIDS medication is of greater value then a movie, even though it has one-sixth the protection.

What I meant was - create your own ‘next big thing.’ Stifle what creativity? The company I work for has created a ton of material and we’ve been around for a while. Just like kids who copy their favorite comic book characters, some of them end up creating their own later on, and start publishing or end up working for a publisher.

Greed? Do you think Marvel or DC were multi-million dollar companies when they started? George Lucas was a household name before Star Wars? I don’t see the harm.

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see the harm.

I too see no harm for a reasonable time. I do not think creativity in arts needs greater protection than creativity in technology, or in research to save lives. A reasonable time period to make a reasonable profit was the original intent of copyright and is a good idea. This copyright forever bit was not.

As it is Christmas, I am reminded of all the great adaptations that have been made on A Christmas Carol. We will never again be able to do this with popular works. The greatest work of mankind occurred before copyright. I understand the need to profit from work, but I do not agree with the current length of copyright.

I know some will not agree. Fortunately, we do not have extremely lengthy protection on those things that matter most to society.

 

[DMC12]

Not quite - it was the reposting of an online cartoon without reference, and the use of images from films as profile pictures, to give the examples which caused concern.

well, if by online cartoon you mean from the original site, all they have to do is pretty much click the video and they will be sent to the original youtube channel.

about the images from films as profile pictures and such i doubt there is problem with that, it is just an image, not the entire film, and it is not used for doing bussines.

Like for example if someone made their little neighbourhood store called, mikey mouse groseries, i doubt Disney would fill a lawsuit against them. the same as you dont have to pay them to draw mickey on your sketchbook, or pay some artist to play their song with a guitar, even if you do it for money like those guys who sing in the streets for some change.

i think a lawyer would give you a better answer, since i think yours is not a moral problem, but one of knowing the laws.

 

[edwest2]

I too see no harm for a reasonable time. I do not think creativity in arts needs greater protection than creativity in technology, or in research to save lives. A reasonable time period to make a reasonable profit was the original intent of copyright and is a good idea. This copyright forever bit was not.

As it is Christmas, I am reminded of all the great adaptations that have been made on A Christmas Carol. We will never again be able to do this with popular works. The greatest work of mankind occurred before copyright. I understand the need to profit from work, but I do not agree with the current length of copyright.

I know some will not agree. Fortunately, we do not have extremely lengthy protection on those things that matter most to society.

What’s the harm in the copyright forever idea? I don’t see it. “The greatest work of mankind occurred before copyright.”? “Fortunately, we do not have extremely lengthy protection on those things that matter most to society.”? So art matters (at least at one time) but copyright killed it? Seriously?

Peace,
Ed