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

Access denied

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: Access denied

#41

Post by darkarmani »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #21
praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy. There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...

You mean because there were no good music artists like Elvis and the Beatles 20 years ago? Or even Michael Jackson for that matter?

Re: Access denied

#42

Post by MartinCron »

praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

a good argument for justification of piracy

Which, by the way, is indistinguishable from rationalizing the sentiment of "I want stuff without having to pay for it"

Re: Access denied

#43

Post by officemonkey »

w1ntermute wrote: post #18
njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

> Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. It feels completely unreasonable to me. There's no reason why Disney should be given an exception when others aren't. It's idiotic to suggest that they should get special treatment just because their IP is commercially valuable.

Mickey Mouse is protected by trademark.

The Steamboat Willie article is specious. Thanks to a failure to register copyrights (back when those things mattered) the Fleischer studio "Superman" cartoons are in the public domain. The world did not end. People may use and sell these cartoons, but they still have to be careful not to run aground against the Superman trademark.

The same thing would happen to Steamboat Willie.

Re: Access denied

#44

Post by coderdude »

w1ntermute wrote: post #18
njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

> Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. It feels completely unreasonable to me. There's no reason why Disney should be given an exception when others aren't. It's idiotic to suggest that they should get special treatment just because their IP is commercially valuable.

I disagree. Disney is the perfect example of when copyright should be extended. Disney (the man) is dead but he didn't die owning a portfolio of cartoon IP. Disney (the corporation) owned that and still has a global business that lives and dies by the fact that it can maintain its brand. I don't see any benefit to mankind if people were suddenly free to print Mickey Mouse onto t-shirts and sell them.

Re: Access denied

#45

Post by MartinCron »

njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

If you change it from a nominal fee to a progressively larger and larger fee, you let content owners who really care about their long-term IP ownership compensate the public for the fact that the work isn't part of the public domain, as it otherwise would be.

Re: Access denied

#46

Post by darkarmani »

OGinparadise wrote: post #24

Can someone make the argument about why should Disney be forced to give up copyright to Mickey Mouse? Or The Beatles to the music they created?

They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards.

Can any one make the argument why we should give Disney an unlimited monopoly on the content they create? Why should we pay for courts and systems to enforce their artificial scarcity, if they cannot uphold their side of the agreement?

Re: Access denied

#47

Post by Contero »

w1ntermute wrote: post #18
njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

> Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. It feels completely unreasonable to me. There's no reason why Disney should be given an exception when others aren't. It's idiotic to suggest that they should get special treatment just because their IP is commercially valuable.

Why is it idiotic?

I see more value in having Disney pay an appropriately large amount of money to keep their IP than I see in making sure that their specific content gets into the public domain.

Who cares about steamboat willy if Disney is going to fight tooth and nail over it? It's everything else that will expire into the public domain that I care about.

Re: Access denied

#48

Post by CoffeeDregs »

darkarmani wrote: post #41
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy. There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...

You mean because there were no good music artists like Elvis and the Beatles 20 years ago? Or even Michael Jackson for that matter?

Ah. Perhaps DHH was right...

We're heading OT, but perhaps that I didn't make obvious that my comparison was relative is what caused your confusion.

Relative to new stuff, there is very little pirating of stuff over 20 years old (probably even over 1 year old since content is ephemeral). While I don't have the numbers to hand, I'm willing to assert that the amount of pirating of Elvis, The Beatles, etc is tiny relative to the pirating of Sky Fall, The Hobbit, Gangnam Style, Call Me Maybe, Games Of Thrones, etc.

Re: Access denied

#49

Post by OGinparadise »

orionblastar wrote: post #39
OGinparadise wrote: post #24

Can someone make the argument about why should Disney be forced to give up copyright to Mickey Mouse? Or The Beatles to the music they created?

Our founding fathers wanted to encourage competition and innovation. Copyright was given as a temporary protection of works for the owner, and after a certain amount of time the copyright fell into the public domain and then anyone could use it for free. This allowed small businesses and individuals to be able to compete with the copyright holder, and encourage the copyright holder to keep innovating new copyrights a…

Personally I see patents and copyrights as different, very different (I know that the expiration time are different too). There's a huge difference in innovation and benefit to the society when it comes to a Viagra patent and Mickey Mouse.

It's my opinion of course.

Re: Access denied

#50

Post by CoffeeDregs »

StavrosK wrote: post #29
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy. There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...

People grant protection to works on the provision that these works become freely available after N years. The copyright industry just goes ahead and extends this unilaterally, just because they want to. Why should the public keep up its end of the deal when the copyright industry doesn't?

I still don't see what this has to do with grandparent's point that this was affecting piracy. I certainly agree with your point. I just don't see how it's relevant to the points of either parent or grandparent.
Post reply on HN