Under the original Constitution, copyrights used to expire after 14 years. If the author so wished...

The retards should put on a trip identifying themselves as retards

>only gold can be used for money, only property owners can vote, women and Irish were only worth 3/5 of a vote, everyone could own any kind of gun, and slavery was legal.

this would honestly fix about 99% of every problem in the country 2bh

>being legal means everybody would have one

you know you can legally own a tank with fully working cannon and machine guns nigger but good luck affording one.

CD-RW drives used to cost $10,000 now you can buy one for $10.

>machine guns nigger

How much these cost

>mass producing CD drives and nuclear weapons is equally easy

Pirate their shit and convince everyone else to do the same.
If their copyrights aren't profitable, they won't have the resources to lobby for them.

Don't give them your shekels.

as long as the company that owns the rights still exists, why should they be forced to give them up after an arbitrary length of time?

The only difference is international regulation, which is really the point we were talking about here, so your dumb opinion doesn't make any god damned sense, but whatever, I know you have nothing intelligent to contribute

to promote the progress of science and useful arts

>getting this mad when revealed to be a simpleton

Why should the rights to a work exist perpetually under a corporation when they had nothing to do with it? The creator has been dead for 50 fucking years. All the people profiting off the original work just lucked into the situation and are just rewriting the rules to keep their dream alive.

As you say copyright was supposed to give artists some protection and help nurture artistic works. Then huge corporations and greedy Jews turned it on its head and now copyright laws have the complete opposite effect. All they do now is protect the profits of massive companies.

>Cred Forums always keeping me woke

And being able to release someone else's work (eg Steamboat Mickey or night of The Living Dead) and profit from it helps the progress of "science and useful" arts how?

You have nothing and can only deflect and meme. Nice! Individuals have built nuclear weapons from scratch in the United States, for the record.

Switched my vote from Trump to Clinton based on your post, btw. Nice job.

It's about modification, idiot.

You don't even understand the discussion so why chime in? Pipe down.

People won't get sued for using a thing without paying licensing fees, which means they're more likely to make works involving previous copyrighted thing. For example, someone wants to use the likeness of Mickey Mouse in a work that Disney deems inappropriate. Right now, it's my understanding there's no legal way to make such a work if Disney declines to license to the creator. And there's poor people who can't afford license fees that are similarly stuck.

>And being able to release someone else's work (eg Steamboat Mickey or night of The Living Dead) and profit from it helps the progress of "science and useful" arts how?
Ask Disney, it sure progressed their bank account, with Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Snow White, Hunchback of Notredame, Rapunzel, Cinderella...

>le "those are folk tales and couldn't be copyrighted but the specific version that Disney made can be :^)" maymay

>your average "informed and educated" Clinton voter

reddit go away.

>disney hates copyright material turning public domain
>built their entire empire on public domain
fucking poetry

That's the entire point of capitalism - privatization of the commons.

too long didn't read 2bh

> Meanwhile they slowly buy up all the major media franchises and companies (Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm)

What do they mean by this?

no one said anything about "modification" for which take to mean "remixes" or using part of the content.

That can and does fall under fair usage laws (which do need a full overhaul) but to just remove copyright after a ceratin time will only encourage people sitting waiting to snap something up and turn a profit off it as soon as it expires. This WONT be film makers doing that either, it will just be record labels/movie companies.

So by that logic there would be people who would want to use him(it) in a le edgy offensive way just for the sake of it. Which doesn't breed re-invention in any way.

So, do something good then if you want to make profit You (one) isn't entitled to just take something because you want to. It would be different if all PD material was freely available but it won't be. it will just be chancers making money off something they didn't do any work for.

Less about exploitation of works and more about trademark.

>by that logic there would be people who would want to use him(it) in a le edgy offensive way

You're obviously retarded or can't read if you think that's the only situation I outlined in my post. Not to mention it's distorted anyway, since Disney could just say no to anything for any arbitrary reason, not just edgy portrayals.

That's why i said the fair usage laws require an overhaul. Simply empowering someone to do what they want whatever it might be isn't the answer.

>copy rights
>rights

The original limit does seem a bit short to me, I dont see why you shoudn't be able to milk an IP you create for most of the rest of your life. 56 seems pretty fair

They aren't giving up their rights, they're allowing other people to have the same rights.

Good point. The current members of the company should not be allowed to profit from someone else's (Disney's) work.

>What the fuck do we do?
Nothing. Honestly, if it wasn't Disney, it'd be another company trying to do it. Only difference between Disney doing it as soon as they could and waiting for somebody else to do it is it would've taken a little longer for some other company/companies to step in and so there'd just be a slightly larger chunk of things that would've slipped into the public domain.

If you insist on being mad at Disney though, you can take solace in knowing that since they're the ones doing the pushing, it's their bank account that's taking the hit for it.

I'm not sure whether to pirate new stuff, but definitely stuff released over 20-50 years (depending on what you think is right).

ITT

> Greedy ass chinks hoping they can get their hands on Mickey and make more fake shit

It's ok Chinks. You can still have Rickey Mouse

>> Greedy ass chinks hoping they can get their hands on Mickey and make more fake shit

Don't forget Mario & Zelda.

The chinks have their eye on those properties as well.

Imagine you create a movie, and it is literally perfect. Instant classic, everybody loves it, you get tons of oscars and etc.
Now, you think this movie is perfect as it is, and should never be remade.
And in your opinion, should every hollywood company be allowed to make a cheap rehash of your movie in 14 years, using the brand name as a quick chash grab?

I agree. Only Disney should be allowed to make cheap rehashes of their movies.

>should be allowed to
You mean
>should be sent to prison if they don't comply.

I'd be balls deep in some model sniffing cocaine out of another ones asshole, why would I give a fuck? Make a rehash, who gives a shit.

>Don't forget Mario & Zelda.
>The chinks have their eye on those properties as well.

Can't wait until the Chinese get their hands on the beloved IPs of every nation and fuck it up.

>imagine you think a movie shouldn't be remade
>should it be remade?
Are you this stupid on purpose?

maybe some people care about the effort they put in their life work, and dont wanna see it ruined for a quick cash grab?

This. It's not like the original disappears.

> sleeping beauty gets woken from her slumber by Captain Crunch molestor

People don't own movies. Corporations do.

And that's why we have fair use exceptions to copyright.

>Don't forget Mario & Zelda.
>The chinks have their eye on those properties as well.

The Chinese have been lobbying for shorter and shorter IP laws for decades...

maybe Chinese cock sucker Hillary will finally let Disney go to the Chinks.

>maybe Chinese cock sucker Hillary will finally let Disney go to the Chinks.

Why not?

We're already selling out half of Hollywoods Media assets to the Chinese under Obama.

>make literally perfect movie for disney and think it should never be remade
>disney makes dozen cheap rehashes with the same name the next year without asking you anything

The Wall Street Jews would never allow it

>The Chinese have been lobbying for shorter and shorter IP laws for decades...
>maybe Chinese cock sucker Hillary will finally let Disney go to the Chinks.

Didn't the Chinese already buy Lions Gate and now Paramount?

They already own MGM... what's left?

Fair use doesn't cover very much. If a company made a movie based on existing IP, it would get shut down.

Fair use provision is extremely restrictive and does not allow one to create new works based on a copyrighted property as Disney did with public domain fairy tales.

>The Wall Street Jews would never allow it

The Jews have been selling out to the Chinks for years now.

Lions Gate
MGM

Pretty soon, Paramount

On the list: Universal

I don't get the people in this thread. There is no such thing as intellectual property, you can not own ideas, you can not sell ideas, and any government legitimizing a business model based on trading ideas is a slave to big business. Copyright is a scam, nothing more.

I for one, bow down to our new Chinese Overlords.

Fuck the jews, right?

>The Jews have been selling out to the Chinks for years now.
>Lions Gate
>MGM
>Pretty soon, Paramount
>On the list: Universal

Holy shit. Do the Chinese own half of Hollywood now?

You can have a government that fines people and throws them in jail if they copy something.

>The Jews have been selling out to the Chinks for years now.

Get ready for a flood of Chink movies: anti Jap, anti western propaganda.

You can have onion choco cheese pudding for breakfast, but why?

>implying that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

>China lobbies for shorter copyright
>China buys all the IP
Whoops.

Special interests lobbying, from what OP says.

>captcha
For fucks sake, Google.

>Fire
>Air
>Incapable of confinement

What's this nigga smoking?

>Fire
>Air
>smoking
pottery

>confining fire and air
I think you're the stoner here.

>Didn't the Chinese already buy Lions Gate and now Paramount?
>They already own MGM... what's left?

Holy shit. I didn't realize we sold so much of hollywood already.

>The Chinese have been lobbying for shorter and shorter IP laws for decades...

Which is how they are able to swing the Paramount deal and not get fucked by the FCC

>lucked into the situation
You mean working at the company Disney founded and fully intended to keep going after his death

If these creators care so much about copyright and the integrity of the income from their works they can do the Calvin and Hobbes guy thing and just never license anything and take the rights to your grave. But if you sell out you can't expect that to go away once you're dead and all that's left is the corpse of something you gave up for cash

>little people deserve to have their profits protected
>but big companies that want to do that are greedy and don't deserve it

A game starring Sleeping beauty. Capn Crunch. And a fucked up version of Mario.

This is the type of excellence we can expect in our future Chinese movies.

>Get ready for a flood of Chink movies: anti Jap, anti western propaganda.
Chinese propaganda is not about anti-something per se, the message instilled is all about working with China for a better future.
That's why they cast white actors in their movies, those "commies" aren't very subtle tho

>In memory 4channers are equal to redditors; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

I agree that people working at big companies deserve to make profit for fair work, but these companies are lobbying to unfairly change laws in their favor at the expense of other people.

Plus Disney wasn't around for the later extensions.

I want Cred Forums to leave

Goddamn, why does everyone hate the Irish?

>>Under the original Constitution, only gold can be used for money, only property owners can vote, women and Irish were only worth 3/5 of a vote, everyone could own any kind of gun, and slavery was legal
>Sounds good

Nigga how much property you own?

Also wishing for the gold standard back just means you want to suck foreign dick. If not for Nixon, we'd be owned by China right now

>women and Irish were only worth 3/5 of a vote

Women couldn't vote at all and nobody mentioned the Irish. You're thinking of black slaves, who were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportioning delegates to the Southern states.

>at the expense of other people.

I'd rather have disney maintian control of their media than have the Chinese or some foreing government fucking use it Mickey propaganda mouthpiece.

Were free blacks worth a full person, and were white slaves worth 3/5?

The constitution only distinguishes between free people and "all other people"

Chinks will just use some other cutesy cartoon character for propaganda.

Were blacks and women allowed to vote when the constitution was first released? I thought they couldn't.

Nice triple doubles and completely correct.

Yeah, that dude is talking about the census, not the right to vote

Yep.

Disney is stifling creativity because of their battle against copyright expiration.

When copyright never expires, it allows copyright holders to sit and milk their ip for years and years instead of innovating and creating new things in order to survive.

It also makes others fear creating new things if it has any similarity to an existing property. They are afraid that they will spend months or years working on a project, only to have it shut down because of a few similarities.

That's not how it works. I wish it was because really heirs should not be able to live off their ancestor's work.
If an enterprise is a holder then the death clause is mute because businesses don't die.

The only thing one could actually do to use IPs is what's been done for years now... which pretty much amounts to copying the idea and change enough of it to avoid legal repercussions.

If successful you would be sued anyways by someone looking to make some money on the cheap, if unsuccessful nobody would care.

OK, thanks.

this is the real reason we are being flooded with goddamn remakes and expanded universes

Disney is such fucking cancer

>electing democrats
you deserve it

>heirs should not be able to live off their ancestor's work
Why shouldn't I be able to do whatever the FUCK I want with my creation, including letting my offspring benefit from it after I'm gone? Please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to do this, fucking fascist liberal. Your ilk are the reason that my grandfather's farm is now government fucking property.

Nice try Goldstein.

>white slaves
It's that old pol. Meme again

no, voting was restricted to property owning white males

It was a much better time

Consider that copyright law is directly comparable and maybe you'll understand. Y'know that store's own-brand paracetemol? That's chemically identical to the expensive big-brand version. Ibuprofen and Neurofen are again identical. This can happen because the patent eventually enters the public domain. If we're saying that copyright never has to run out but patents do, then eventually the pharmaceutical companies will use copyright as a precedent to extend patents.

And consider things like DNA. Should that come under copyright or patent law? If you want to say patent law, then what's to stop someone cloning you without your permission after the age of 15 or whenever?

Also consider things like father christmas and the easter bunny that are public domain. Have they really not helped their holidays which helped society?

You can do whatever you want with your creations. The problem is the government restricts other peoples right to copy whatever they want to, and take it too far.

>posts a picture from decades after blacks were given voting rights

1900s NYC

Women still couldn't vote and ruin the country with prohibition while the boys were off fighting WW1

fucking cunts

Creators death + 15 years
Only fair way to implement copyright law

and we had segregation so nignogs had to behave

Were blacks actually better off during segregation? I've heard this a few times, but it might be cherry-picking.

>People defending the length of copyright law when patents are much shorter in length and businesses do just fine.

People shouldn't be allowed to skate through life on the achievements of their ancestors
Let me guess, you're a white supremacist who thinks that white-inventors creations are reflective of you?

It's funny, it's always the people with no talent/skills that campaign to be allowed to profit off stuff they didn't do

ever heard of the Harlem Renaissance?

Blacks did alright for themselves

Yeah I forgot about the monthly residual check I get because Thomas Edison invented the light bulb and was white

fuck off

It would stop us from being in a situation where, say, a company who's iconic works are over 70 years old subsequently has a massive stranglehold on their form of entertainment media

Kill yourself.

...

>Under the original Constitution
Uh what
Copyright law isn't in the Constitution nor in any of its amendments

I'd personally put it at 30-40, but I think the larger problem is that Disney obviously intends to push the date that their works become public domain as far as humanly possible, meaning it likely could go upwards of 100 years, which is fucking insane

So you actually have to get a fucking job instead of living on daddys money. Damn those ebil libruls.

It lets people get easy access to and create base works on public domain art.

Thanks for sticking up for the little guys, user, what would poor Disney do without well-intentioned folks like yourself?

Who the fuck would buy Steamboat Mickey in 2016? Serious question

It would be unfair if Disney lost his intellectual property when he's thawed out of cryogenics.

That's Snow White you idiots

That's going to be the least of his issues when he finds out how many Jews are in upper management

>Nazi
>pedophile
Was Walt /ourguy/?

You cannot actually be this fucking stupid. Being able to get killed by a mob and have your corpse desecrated was not "doing alright." You revisionist idiot

>not knowing that edison didn't invent the lightbulb
nice education you got there sir

No, no, no
You don't get it
It was "better" for a basement-dwelling neckbeard so that they would no longer have to watch their crush/waifu make out with a black guy

kek

anyone who raped or killed people in the old west got hanged by an angry mob

Hell you could get lynched just for stealing horses

that's how things were. None of that happened in the north

>implying bootlegs aren't vastly superior to thee original product

Lynching was just the good old days in general, it wasn't exclusive to darkies

I'm OK with this

I'm talking about being more successful on average.

he invented the first practical incandescent lightbulb, autist

no one cares about the others

It was better if you liked not living in a drug ridden ghetto

>Cred Forums thinks ancient religious texts like the bible and quran are outdated and shouldn't apply to modern law
>Cred Forums thinks the 300 year old constitution should

Explain this Cred Forums.

first 2 were written by Semites
the other was written by whites

Live action Jason Statham movie.

English guy named Mickey is enjoying his quaint American vacation on a riverboat/casino, but accidentally pisses off a mafia bigshot who is using the boat to smuggle heroin or some shit.

Directed by Guy Ritchie.

So why was Disney allowed to remake classic stories into movies then?

>he invented the first practical incandescent lightbulb, autist
He invented it about as much as Steve Jobs invented Siri

>he invented the first practical incandescent lightbulb
So now we're moving goalposts?
But this is also not true, unless you have a retarded definition of practical (which you probably do)

this is what it should be

>Get airtight bottle
>Put air in it
>Close bottle

Bingo, confined air.

>Euclid
All that faggot did was draw some shapes and shit, don't act like you're super enlightened because you can follow basic geometry.

True, ideas can't be sold. As a matter of fact one could make an animated mouse movie or series and no legal action can be taken.

However a script or a movie or a game or whatever are not ideas, those are specific artistic creations and as such can be registered.

I am fine with people living off their creative property, that makes sense to me because if one creates something i believe he/she should be able to live of the invention.
The problem i have with it is that other people live off it long after the person that did all the work is dead.

Even specifics art should become social property at some point.

>Patents for actual inventions only last 20 years
>A copyright over a fictional character should last a century
???

This

Can we do a thread about Big Brother or Game of Thrones now?? Haha

lmbo

I don't really have a problem with a copyright staying proprietary for an indefinite amount of time if it's being used. But the law should push something into public domain after maybe 10 years or however long you want to set that at if it's not being used. This means people like Disney that keep making shit can keep their copyrights but then the issue with things being forgotten because someone is sitting on the license doing nothing with it will also be more or less solved.

I hope you paid for the rights every time you sang Happy Birthday to someone user

They already do this. F4ntastic exists because they didn't want to lose the rights

Though reading some of the posts saying shorter copyrights would lead to more innovation because you can't just milk something for decades are pretty convincing. It kind of depends on what side you're on though as if I created something profitable I would want to keep that money train rolling for as long as possible too.

He mentioned about things being forgotten, so I think he's more talking about smaller IPs that can never get re-released because whoever ended up with the IP doesnt give a shit and definitely wouldnt care enough to make a new project to keep the licence

Yeah, this has happened to a few IPs I like, though some of them have been saved in some way. I can't even imagine how many have been actually lost because of this bullshit like some insurance company somehow getting their hands on the IP (or multiple companies that don't want to cooperate owning different parts of the IP) and just sitting on it for decades.

What opyrights expired this year