Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Advertisements
Copyright laws have gotten absurd.
I can understand the rational behind the suit had the PTA charged for admission to the film. That'd be making a profit off a copyrighted work. But this was (I presume) not done for profit and certainly not something advertised to the wider public (i.e. non-PTA members).
It's not so much to protect the artist as it is a convenient way to fill corporate coffers. The 1998 extension of the Copyright Act of 1976 only reinforces my view that this is just something done purely for corporate profitability without serving a wider public interest.
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyri..._Extension_Act
The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States. It is one of several acts extending the terms of copyrights. ... Copyright protection for works published before January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.
.
I can understand if it were from 30 years to 50 years. But extending well past the lifetime of the majority of actors and employees of the copyright holder is just plain absurd.
How severe is the harm done to the copyright holder (corporation or authors' descendants) if, three generations later, Joe or Jane Smith makes copies of the work? How does it serve the greater public interest to extend the copyright from 75 to 95 years?
What's even worse is that most of Disney's products are copied from Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen. Whose stories were originally violent, depressing, or both; they were "sanitized" in the 20th century, even before Disney was established. If those authors hadn't been dead for centuries, Disney would have been charged with plagiarism. Even worse, Disney totally swindled Alan Alexander Milne, author of "Winnie the Pooh" books, when they wouldn't let him have the ownership of his characters back. They also added characters, like Darby the girl and Buster the dog, that weren't in the original books.
Even my favorite Disney movie "Homeward Bound: the Incredible Journey" was based on the book by Sheila Burnford. Ditto for "Lion King"; I'm sure it was copied from somewhere, possibly African folktales. In short, few or none of Disney's products are original creations. I'm questioning whether Disney paid the rightful royalties when the shoe was on the other foot.
The Brother's Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson aren't owed royalties. Just like if you copyrighted a cartoon we wouldn't owe your heirs royalties in 2141. I'm sure that as Shelia Burnford published her book three years before Disney came out with a movie, I'm sure she was paid royalties as well.
The story line of Snow White (as an example) isn't copyrighted. Disney's Depiction of snow white (IE, the light yellow dress, blue blouse, red bow/hairband, short black hair) is copyrighted.
But the story isn't copyrighted. The story can be (and has been) used many times over the years in various depictions.
I can understand the rational behind the suit had the PTA charged for admission to the film. That'd be making a profit off a copyrighted work. But this was (I presume) not done for profit and certainly not something advertised to the wider public (i.e. non-PTA members).
It's not so much to protect the artist as it is a convenient way to fill corporate coffers. The 1998 extension of the Copyright Act of 1976 only reinforces my view that this is just something done purely for corporate profitability without serving a wider public interest.
It's a misunderstanding of the effect of copyright infringement just to think that profit must be involved.
I had a young man working for me who made extra money singing the Star Spangled Banner at different events. He had a unique way of singing it that would bring tears to anyone's eyes, so he was in quite high demand.
What if someone recorded his performance and distributed that recording for free? It would be irrelevant that no money was made. The problem would be that fewer people would have hired my guy for their events and he would have lost money. He was saving for his kid's college with that money.
Illegal distribution of copyrighted material is an infringement regardless whether it's done for profit because it still takes rightful earnings from the copyright holder.
Quote:
I can understand if it were from 30 years to 50 years. But extending well past the lifetime of the majority of actors and employees of the copyright holder is just plain absurd.
How severe is the harm done to the copyright holder (corporation or authors' descendants) if, three generations later, Joe or Jane Smith makes copies of the work? How does it serve the greater public interest to extend the copyright from 75 to 95 years?
Well, I'd like my children and grandchildren to continue to profit from the fruit of my labor just as much as anyone who builds up a business. If the fruit of my labor continues to be worth money, I'd rather my grandchildren get that money.
I would like to see, however, that somehow be narrowed to individual creators rather than corporations. In very many ways, treating corporations like legal persons is not a good idea.
California admin know that the copyright training is FREE to anyone that wants to take it and gives numerous examples on what is allowed and what isn't.
It is mandatory on our campus and we even do an additional supplemental lecture that includes many articles like this one all over the country where these issues have risen.
We have had to re-organize our youtube channel and live facebook feeds around these rules.
I have a corporation which can neither vote in elections, nor evade paying its own taxes.
So... not sure if you're speaking from the same experience as one who has established such.
You are just not very good at running your corporation. Move your corporation overseas, and you can evade paying taxes. But don't get the idea that you can move overseas to avoid paying personal income tax. Because American citizens living overseas, still have to pay US income taxes. But not the corporate persons. They are exempt. Becase they are special.
You are just not very good at running your corporation. Move your corporation overseas, and you can evade paying taxes. But don't get the idea that you can move overseas to avoid paying personal income tax. Because American citizens living overseas, still have to pay US income taxes. But not the corporate persons. They are exempt. Becase they are special.
Welcome to America! The land of the formerly free and the home of the formerly brave. We did this to ourselves!
I can understand the rational behind the suit had the PTA charged for admission to the film. That'd be making a profit off a copyrighted work. But this was (I presume) not done for profit and certainly not something advertised to the wider public (i.e. non-PTA members).
It's not so much to protect the artist as it is a convenient way to fill corporate coffers. The 1998 extension of the Copyright Act of 1976 only reinforces my view that this is just something done purely for corporate profitability without serving a wider public interest.
.
I can understand if it were from 30 years to 50 years. But extending well past the lifetime of the majority of actors and employees of the copyright holder is just plain absurd.
How severe is the harm done to the copyright holder (corporation or authors' descendants) if, three generations later, Joe or Jane Smith makes copies of the work? How does it serve the greater public interest to extend the copyright from 75 to 95 years?
Well there you go. The purpose of copyrights is supposed to be to promote the progress of artists by protecting their exclusive rights to their work, so they can continue to produce their works. Okay, how is that going to work after they are dead? It's just stifling progress of other artists that might want to take over that work and continue it. It doesn't really matter though. Because most copyrights are either bought or stolen from artists by big corporations. The actual artists see very little of that money.
Meanwhile Disneyland today just announced that they are raising ticket prices to $209 a day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
re: copyright
