Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 260 posts

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#61

Post by isodev »

latexr wrote: post #58
nandomrumber wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is business supposed to be conducted under those conditions?

Fairly, respectfully, and without exploitation? Most business conducted in the world does not require someone to reject their lawful rights. For consumers in the EU, for example, the law even offers explicit protections by stating specifically that contract terms which are unfair have no legal binding. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...

> I don't like what I signed up for freely

I believe the post makes a good case that "freely" doesn't mean by choice at all. In other words, not what people consider freely.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#62

Post by [deleted] »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #52
olalonde wrote: post #45

> Remember, Termination is one of the only copyright policies that solely benefits creative workers. To play devil's advocate, this provision probably lowers how much media companies are willing to pay when acquiring copyrights.

Why? A publishers goal is always to pay nothing at all for the rights, at best this is simply another excuse.

[deleted]

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#63

Post by lkramer »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #37

I loved WFRR as a kid, and of all the movies I loved as a kid, it has definitely held up the best. I re-watched it recently and it is still great. Hilarious, thoughtful and just the right amount of dark. One of the reasons I still love it is that it hasn't fallen prey to the usual Hollywood practice of taking something you love and shovelling it down your throat until you're sick of it. It saddens me when you see a r…

The 8 most terrifying words in the English language are "Let us turn this movie into a franchise"

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#64

Post by Gormanu »

With Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it’s not really clear whether the author originally came up with such a great idea and script, or if Disney just brought it to life so brilliantly on screen. I’m leaning toward the second. It’s cool that he got the rights back, but without Disney this idea just isn’t going to "sing" again.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#65

Post by latexr »

isodev wrote: post #61
latexr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly, respectfully, and without exploitation? Most business conducted in the world does not require someone to reject their lawful rights. For consumers in the EU, for example, the law even offers explicit protections by stating specifically that contract terms which are unfair have no legal binding. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...

> I don't like what I signed up for freely I believe the post makes a good case that "freely" doesn't mean by choice at all. In other words, not what people consider freely.

I think you meant to reply to a different post?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46032573

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#66

Post by olalonde »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #52
olalonde wrote: post #45

> Remember, Termination is one of the only copyright policies that solely benefits creative workers. To play devil's advocate, this provision probably lowers how much media companies are willing to pay when acquiring copyrights.

Why? A publishers goal is always to pay nothing at all for the rights, at best this is simply another excuse.

For the same reason a 35-year lease on a house is cheaper than buying it outright. If you know you won't own it forever, you won't pay as much.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#67

Post by latexr »

philipallstar wrote: post #60
latexr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly, respectfully, and without exploitation? Most business conducted in the world does not require someone to reject their lawful rights. For consumers in the EU, for example, the law even offers explicit protections by stating specifically that contract terms which are unfair have no legal binding. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...

[flagged]

> "Exploitation" isn't an objective term.

It means “the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work”. If you’re having someone reject their rights in a contract because that benefits you, that’s a form of exploitation. You’re making someone worse explicitly so you benefit.

> It often just means "I don't like what I signed up for freely".

From my first post:

> If you can sign them away, you can be swindled of them.

If you’re swindled, you’re not given them away freely.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#68

Post by isodev »

latexr wrote: post #65
isodev wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't like what I signed up for freely I believe the post makes a good case that "freely" doesn't mean by choice at all. In other words, not what people consider freely.

I think you meant to reply to a different post? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46032573

Oh yes, it was peer comment. Oh well, too late now and you made the same point :)

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#69

Post by bryanrasmussen »

mayoff wrote: post #33

I don’t know if Cory Doctorow has read the “fantastic 1981 novel”, but I have (decades ago) and as I recall the plot of the book and the plot of the movie are very different from each other. The author of the book didn’t write the screenplay and I doubt he had much (if anything) to do the character designs in the movie. So even if he has the rights to his novel back, it’s not at all clear to me that he could just mak…

>clearly Disney isn’t interested

often big media companies aren't interested in exploiting specific properties if there is ongoing litigation regarding them.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#70

Post by philipallstar »

latexr wrote: post #67
philipallstar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> "Exploitation" isn't an objective term. It means “the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work”. If you’re having someone reject their rights in a contract because that benefits you, that’s a form of exploitation. You’re making someone worse explicitly so you benefit. > It often just means "I don't like what I signed up for freely". From my first post: > If you can sign them a…

> If you’re swindled, you’re not given them away freely.

How do you define "swindle"?

Post reply on HN