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

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

web.law.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#121

Post by coliveira »

kevando wrote: post #3

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#122

Post by dublinben »

streetnigga wrote: post #95
donpdonp wrote: post #42

While not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a Creative Commons license. Some Creative Commons cartoons http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-the... Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq ) edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)

Consequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives. We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.

I think that both of these are important, and symbiotic tactics. Officially support the artists who are doing the right thing, and rip off the ones who aren't.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#123

Post by YokoZar »

coliveira wrote: post #121
kevando wrote: post #3

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?

Because Disney's political corruption is dragging in the entirety of all creative works with theirs. I may hate Disney for its actions, but that doesn't mean I have to hate singing Happy Birthday too.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#124

Post by dublinben »

stinkytaco wrote: post #113
zanny wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> t's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. No it isn't, that isn't how the world works. If you take public domain material and utilize it in your own way there is no semblance of reason to think the original creator of said material endorsed you. I don't know if you are talking about how we are now living in a world where basically nobody alive has experienced material enter…

I'm talking about a world where the character is a trademark, a distinctive brand in and of itself and where the "creator" is no longer a living person, but a corporation that continues to create work with the characters. Steamboat Willy is a distinct piece of art. However, the characters in it have become brands unto themselves. The world of trademark and copyright are colliding in a new way here if Steamboat Willy…

The relevant case here is a recent decision regarding the Sherlock Holmes books published before 1923. The characters represented in those works (i.e. without later developments in still-copyrighted books) are in the public domain, and can be freely used in new stories. There's no reason to think that the same wouldn't apply to Micky and Donald.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/sherlock-holmes...

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#125

Post by Guvante »

bbanyc wrote: post #98
jellicle wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who pushed for it in Germany, etc.? Oh, right: Disney and the rest of the copyright industry. "Harmonization" somehow always ratchets upwards, never downwards. No one said to Germany: don't ratchet your copyright term upwards, keep it harmonized. When in the next few years U.S. copyright suddenly "needs" to be extended another 20 years, no one is going to complain that this will break harmonization. The copyright…

The Berne Convention (life-plus-50) was adopted in 1886 - before Walt Disney was born, before the first motion picture was made, when recorded sound was just a novelty. Publishing houses were small and there was no "copyright industry" at the time. For the most part, it was the authors themselves, most prominently Victor Hugo, lobbying for protection. Now I think even the Berne term is too long and the rights granted…

While the origin of the 20 year extension is unrelated, the persistence is what he was referring to. Rather than matching others they kept their own.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#126

Post by simbolit »

coliveira wrote: post #121
kevando wrote: post #3

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?

w be Walt Disney, the Person d be Disney, the public company m be Mickey Mouse, the fictional character

I can love w & m, but hate d. I can love w & d, but hate m. I can love d & m, but hate w. I can love d, but hate w & m. I can love m, but hate w & d. I can love w, but hate d & m. I can also be ambivalent to any of these, while hating/loving one or two of the other.

tl;dr: "hating Disney" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with liking Mickey Mouse, or with wanting to use its image. it simply is not related at all.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#127

Post by bananacurve »

streetnigga wrote: post #95
donpdonp wrote: post #42

While not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a Creative Commons license. Some Creative Commons cartoons http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-the... Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq ) edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)

Consequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives. We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.

I get all my software for free just on principle.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#128

Post by simbolit »

iand wrote: post #16
simbolit wrote: post #5

i would love to hear from our libertarian friends on what they think about copyright and the public domain.

Copyright (patents/intellectual property) is one of Benjamin Tucker's Four Great Monopolies[1] that give rise to monopoly capitalism[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopo... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism

i thought that to be the one obvious position. the other (imho) equally obvious position seems to be the following:

copyright is protection of intellectual property, and securing property rights is the prime reason for goverment to exist.

according to the second position (and taking opposition to the estate/death tax into account) it seems consistent with a libertarian position to argue for infinite copyright terms.

am i wrong? i am not a libertarian, but i try to understand you folks.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#129

Post by acjohnson55 »

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #107
acjohnson55 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the sound of that a lot. If your copyright is really profitable, you should be able to afford to pay for its protection. Should this perhaps apply to patent law as well?

For patents, you do have to pay maintenance fees to renew a patent at the 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 year marks after issuance to keep it active, else it goes abandoned. A vast number of patents go un-renewed and lapse that (1) few patents turn out to be "profitable", and (2) most patents don't last their full terms.

The geometric part of the idea is what really caught my eye. I think there's something to be said for a steeply escalating cost for maintaining publicly protected monopoly rights.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#130

Post by ars_technician »

kbenson wrote: post #67
MWil wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My IP law professor once stopped class and shouted at someone wearing a polo with the disney logo, "Sir, are you trying to antagonize me?!"

Thanks for the laugh. I would pay a few bucks to see that play out.

It didn't happen, so all it takes is your imagination! :-)
Post reply on HN