Which is good thing because without those rights we couldn't have corporations. I know there is a loony left theory out there that we would better off without them but since the haters make those arguments over corporate created communications systems typing on their corporate created IPads I don't give them much weight.
But the questions is why should Disney ever lose the rights to their products as long as they are still using them? If my grandfather builds a car company and leaves it to me the car company is still mine and I still have exclusive to right the name and images of that company. No one is going to come to me and say "your family has made enough money it is time to let other people ride your grandfather's coattails" If my grandfather builds a movie studio or writes a world famous book why should someone else be able to take what my grandfather left me? It still has value and I am still using it. Why shouldn't the Wilder family be paid if you want make Little House on the Prairie movie?
I don't think any intellectual copy right should expire as long the right is still being exercised by those who hold it. Someone else shouldn't get to just start cashing in on other people's work.
But the questions is why should Disney ever lose the rights to their products as long as they are still using them? If my grandfather builds a car company and leaves it to me the car company is still mine and I still have exclusive to right the name and images of that company. No one is going to come to me and say "your family has made enough money it is time to let other people ride your grandfather's coattails" If my grandfather builds a movie studio or writes a world famous book why should someone else be able to take what my grandfather left me? It still has value and I am still using it. Why shouldn't the Wilder family be paid if you want make Little House on the Prairie movie?
I don't think any intellectual copy right should expire as long the right is still being exercised by those who hold it. Someone else shouldn't get to just start cashing in on other people's work.
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
- 1790 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
- 923 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
- 853 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
- 861 Views
That's not the point, though.
05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
- 906 Views
????
05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
- 880 Views
Re: ????
05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
- 920 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
- 879 Views
I don't get it.
04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
- 1141 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
- 948 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
- 927 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
- 861 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
- 950 Views
Answering you specifically
05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
- 881 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
- 910 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
- 825 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
- 843 Views
That is a very confusing article.
04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
- 976 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
- 901 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
- 853 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
- 422 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
- 855 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
- 908 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
- 1002 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
- 902 Views
Can you back that up?
06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
- 1027 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
- 818 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
- 1109 Views
corporations have always had rights
06/01/2012 04:08:12 PM
- 869 Views