US copyrights will now last.. forever

Chris Losinger

since the US Supreme court has decided that the phrase "limited times" in the US constitution means nothing and that Congress can, at the behest of Disney and pals, extend copyright terms indefinitely. so what? Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Robin Hood, etc.. all of these are works that passed into the public domain (ie. their copyright expired) that Disney turned into movies. but, you should not expect to ever see a work based on a Disney movie (becuse that would violate their copyrights). likewise, you should never expect to see anything that has been created since 1920 pass into the public domain. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20030115/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_copyrights[^]

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Shog9 0

ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit ohshit

Sorry, i don't have anything better to say about this. I knew it wouldn't get shot down, but was hoping to be suprised for once. X|

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

Stan Shannon

Seems like a valid interpretation of the constitution to me. Better to err on the side of private property rights than communal ownership, I should think. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: Seems like a valid interpretation of the constitution to me wow. for a self-proclaimed conservative, that's a pretty liberal interpretation. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." copyrights, like patents are a bargain between the inventor and the public. the public (via the government) grants monopoly protection to the author on his invention or work, for a limited time, so that the author can profit from his invention. but the time is limited, so that the work will eventually pass into the public domain, where everyone benefits. this is clearly the intent of the constitution and fits with other writings from the Framers themselves who were wary of the British system during the late 1700's (which the current US system has nearly become). if works are not allowed to pass into the public domain, the public does not benefit from use of the works: exactly as Disney clearly benefitted from the availability of the works i mentioned. the original copyright clause allowed 14 years from date of publication. it has now been extended to life of the author plus 70 years, retroactive from 1998. this is absurd in many ways: 1. why should the public grant monopoly rights on a work to the author's estate? presumably his heirs did nothing to create the work (else their name should be on it already). 2. the retroactivity was put there by Disney to protect Mickey Mouse. 3. "life plus 70" is clearly stretching the definition of "limited". 4. the SCOTUS has just made it clear that congress can keep adding onto that life+70, as often as Disney needs. this does nothing to promote the "progress of the arts", since everything is a derivative work, in some way. -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Stan Shannon

Point taken. But in this case it would seem the constitution is purposefully open to interpretation. I would also argue that something such as copy-right law is well within the legislative authority granted to congress by the constitution. It is certainly not a state's rights issue. And while I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the decision, they do seem to be erring on the side of capitalistic principles and private ownership, which is a good thing. Intellectual products are now a much more tangible form of property than they were in the 18th century. I can understand Disney's interest in the issue. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: I would also argue that something such as copy-right law is well within the legislative authority granted to congress by the constitution and i wouldn't argue. my problem with this is that Disney and pals wrote and purchased (and i mean both literally and can provide references) the latest law to extend copyrights. one could argue that it's good to have strong businesses like Disney pumping americas economy. but at the same time, these laws prohibit any new companies from developing the same way Disney did (by exploiting new ways of presenting public domain content - children's stories in cartoon form) because there will be no more public domain content, if Disney has their way. so, it's easy to see why Disney wants this: it continues their own copyrights and it effectively prevents others from getting into their content repackaging business (if that content was written after 1920). -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Christian Graus

Isn't this the American way ? Freedom for those who can pay for it ? I doubt this would meet the approval of the writers of the Constitution, but I also have no doubt it's an accurate reflection of the way the system has changed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002

Chris Losinger

correct on all counts. the US govt. could certainly use a good reboot. sadly it will never happen (not in my lifetime, anyway) -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Roger Wright

Darn... I was almost done with my masterpiece featuring the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Little Mermaid.:(( All that work for nothing... I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

Roger Wright

That's the second time I've agreed with you! Have you been hospitalized recently, and the recipient of a transfusion perhaps tainted by the blood of a Conservative? I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

Roger Wright

The purpose of copyright law and patent law was originally to promote innovation by allowing the inventor/author a time during which (s)he could derive exclusive benefit from the idea or product. At the end of that period of exclusion, the property right was to pass to society so that all might benefit from it. This ruling defeats the purpose of the law, and while it does extend personal property interests ( a good thing, I agree), it does nothing to benefit the general population. Innovation builds upon the works of others. I don't recall who said it, but it has been said that, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Shame on me for forgetting the author (it's still copyrighted I guess), but the vision contained within that statement gives clear insight into the process by which this nation became great. To prohibit future visionaries from building upon the innovations of the past, be it in the arts or the sciences, is to cripple the nation and the world. Such interpretations of the law condemn future generations to re-inventing the wheel. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

Roger Wright

It's been over two hundred years since we had a good revolution. We're overdue. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

Chris Losinger

Roger Wright wrote: Conservative if Conservative actually meant constitutionalist instead of corporatist, moralistic Federalist, i'd wear the label proudly. but it doesn't. -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Roger Wright

You're dead right. Moralism has no place in our country, nor does any favoritism for corporations. We are supposed to be a melting pot, drawing upon the diversity of the world for the best each culture has to offer, and I favor that. Unfortunately, we're given the choice every 4 years to select leaders who either want big business to run our lives, or those who want to tax the life out of the few productive people left here to give handouts to the worthless. I'm registered Republican, not because I believe in the principals they espouse, but because the Democrats have values that are far more noxious. I wish there was a party that truly represented the values America is supposed to stand for, but one has yet to be born...:(( Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now!:-D I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

Chris Losinger

well looky there. here i am agreeing with you now. :) :beer: -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Paul Watson

Roger Wright wrote: the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Little Mermaid Sounds a bit crooked and wet to me...

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

My photoSIG portfolio[^]

KaRl

Some samples of your work to show us :rolleyes: ? You just don't have to use specifically Disney's way of representating these characters, do you :confused: ? Otherwise, I don't think Andersen or Hugo will sue you (perhaps their descendants) :~ ?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Lost User

Roger Wright wrote: I don't recall who said it, but it has been said that, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Shame on me for forgetting the author (it's still copyrighted I guess)... I don't know Sir Isaac Newton was English and part of a Communistic Monarchy. So he wouldn't have benefited from all the amazingly good things that are American. ;P Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002

Michael P Butler

Chris Losinger wrote: because there will be no more public domain content, if Disney has their way. so, it's easy to see why Disney wants this but does it really matter. Whilst I agree Disney will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes. Do we need public domain content whilst we still have imaginations. Okay so we can't redo Steam Boat Willy (Although as Mickey Mouse is trademarked, copyright wouldn't be the issue here). We can still write all our own stories using our own characters and situations. Why would I want to write a story about Donald Duck when I could quiet easily write a story about a Penguin with a speech impediment instead. Creating new original content rather than repackaging other peoples crap is surely the way forward. Michael You gotta roll with it You gotta take your time You gotta say what you say Don't let anybody get in your way - Oasis

Stan Shannon

Yes, but what new ideas would we unite around? The left is inherently Marxist, the Right is overwhelmingly religious zealots of one type or another. The problem is people who get bent out of shape over this Copyright ruling (which does not represent any abuse of the constitution even though it does expose weaknesses in our system ) will turn a blind eye to constitutional travisties such as Roe v. Wade. What do we unite around? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle