Copyright is supposed to reward content creators for creating something. The thing is, though, that creation springs from inspiration... and works lingering on for decades under copyright prevent new ideas inspired by older ones from becoming available.
It's "stealing" when copyright are extended retroactively: I'm not aware of any other form of law in which it's possible to enact things retroactively... certainly not criminal law.
Because you can still buy them. So it's not in any way "stealing" rights from the public.
It's "stealing" when copyright are extended retroactively: I'm not aware of any other form of law in which it's possible to enact things retroactively... certainly not criminal law.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
- 03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
1792 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
- 04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
925 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
- 04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
855 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
- 04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
863 Views
That's not the point, though.
- 05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
908 Views
????
- 05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
882 Views
Re: ????
- 05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
923 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
- 05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
882 Views
I don't get it.
- 04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
1144 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
- 04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
950 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
- 04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
930 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
- 04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
495 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
- 04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
864 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
406 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
- 04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
953 Views
Answering you specifically
- 05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
883 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
- 04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
912 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
827 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
845 Views
That is a very confusing article.
- 04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
978 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
- 04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
904 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
- 05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
855 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
388 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
- 05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
1009 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
- 06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
423 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
- 06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
857 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
- 06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
470 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
- 06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
911 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
1005 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
904 Views
Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
1029 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
820 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
- 06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
1111 Views