There's no such thing as copyright but I still want you to pay for using my stuff

Posted by  $  ReneeDaphne 3 months, 4 weeks ago to Philosophy
54 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

When you utilize my CD ("A State of Grace: 2014 State of Jefferson Tour" available in the Agora here and yes, this is shameless self promotion of the highest order) by copying it and giving a copy to your friend, you have gained in some measure. Whether you got a smile or a sovereign, you benefited by utilizing something I (and the songwriters I perform) created so you could do that.

In addition, you're not really paying for the song or the visual or the CD or download. What you are paying for is the experience.

You don't come away with anything except the experience after a ride at Disneyland but you certainly pay for it. And it's something you cannot pass to another without utilizing my and other's time, labor and resources....our life.

So,. I'm not interested in the government getting involved but I would like to know how you intend on paying us creative producers for the experience we provided since you could not have had the experience without our efforts.

What about paying your "Access to Experience Fee"? Preferably directly to me and not through a "third party collector" like Harry Fox or the entertainment mafia (also known as) ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by bassboat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    We are overlooking the solution here in this discussion. The Free Market will prevail as it always has. When creators are not compensated they will cease to create. A demand will grow and the creators will be able to charge what the public is willing to pay for that good or service. It's real simple. Copyright laws were created for the big money people and not for the creators who got a pittance for their effort. It's time to take it away from the lawyers and put it in the hands of the creators.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      Creativity isn't like oil. It doesn't "lay dormant" and then resurface when people are willing to pay for it. It is a naturally occurring spontaneous outgrowth of the "cauldron" called social interaction. There's a reason the only improvement made in the spinning wheel in over 400 years was done two decades ago by a MAN in Oregon. He invented the "wooly winder". And it was certainly not because there's a huge market but there was a huge need. If it weren't for "patent" right stuff, as woeful as it currently is, Mr "wooly winder" would have gotten squat.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    So much value in the world is appearing in creative content. Hardware is being commoditized. If there's no such thing as copyright, a lot of value people create is not owned.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      You are absolutely correct. In addition, what do YOU mean by "owned". I use LeFevre's four principles 1-must be valued. 2-Has a boundary. 3-Can be defended. 4. YOU are able to change, sell or destroy the thing. All 4 must be fulfilled in order to claim "ownership" of something.

      Which means, right now, it doesn't look like we "own" much and until we have a principled populace, I can't see it changing much. Can you?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    No such thing as copyright? If one of my photographs shows up on a calendar, magazine, or other commercial use without my permission, pretty sure I`ll get a check - after the lawyers percentage is deducted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      After the lawyers, you'd get a few crumbs since the system is set up to benefit them majorily. I WANT you to get paid, but for your experience you offer and it is an "Access to Experience Fee" which any principled person would be happy to pay.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by starznbarz 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yes, we have allowed ourselves to be on the bottom of that particular food chain, not any sort of a coincidence most politicians are of that clan. As to "...any principled person..." , not much of that on display lately. I tend to be old school, steal from me and I may just come see you, bypass all the mumbo jumbo and go straight to satisfaction - although, as a sad report on our times, that would then require the services of one of the shysters referenced above.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 3 months, 1 week ago
    I would like to reiterate that building is experience. If not anyone could do it. Some people do build BUT is it a house? I would have to say with few exceptions everything is experience. Has anyone been perfect out of the box? OH should we license parents BEFORE they become parents to make sure they get it right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    I'm not sure what problem is solved by this proposal.

    Copyrights provide you the right to pursue payment as you choose. Use your method if you choose. What is the problem with copyrights?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    As a builder get paid once. If the owner chooses to give away the house it is on him. If the owner sells the house and makes a profit should I get some of the profit because I did such a good job?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 1 week ago
      A house is a thing and not an experience. You can't "clone" the house and give it to someone. You can make a copy of the experience I and others worked and paid to create and then instead of ME giving you the experience, you are taking what I created and giving to someone else and reaping the benefit of the giving without bothering to include the person who made it possible for you to gift the experience. Kinda rude don't you think? You wouldn't ask Disney if you could use the park free for the weekend would you?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      A "thing" is not an experience. You are comparing chalk and cheese. I voted you down for it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        I don't know your experiences but mine have required me to think and fix the mistakes made with blue prints. Building is not like a puzzle it requires an active thought process. Renovation are mostly about adapting what is to what it is going to be which requires experience to make sure nothing is removed that is holding up the roof. If you have ever built anything you know that you thought about how you wanted it to be when you were finished.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    Having been a writer and publisher, I'm with you, kiddo. However, how are you going to implement the direct payment? The honor system? That's only barely better than nothing.The written and published song is easy but listening or playing? Much more difficulties. If you ever come up with a workable method, I'm with you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jconne 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    I strongly object to @freedomforall's ignorant use of, "wastrel great grandchildren". There are two ethical issues: 1. Gratuitous smearing unknown people as wastrel is just ignorant, rude abuse. 2. The producer of a product of value has the right to determine it's use and disposition. That's what property rights are all about. There is no reason those rights are not value that can be bequeathed to others like any other property. Lets get some principled thinking going on here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      Well......I'm not one of those who subscribes to the concept of "right". I'm more in the contractual camp. To me, you only have agreement that is honored. No document can guarantee that, only principled people. So, if you're on a desert isle with someone, it all boils down to both of you agreeing. Nobody has any "rights". So, if they don't exist in the simplest of structures, it can't exist in the more complex. Only contractual agreement counts and if you can't secure the agreement, even it doesn't count.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    What do you think about having to pay royalty to the wastrel great grandchildren of composers when the composer has been dead for 50 years and you did all the work creating your recording?
    (Thanks to the Disney lawyers who wanted to maintain the gravy train from Mickey for another 50 years, and used their "influence" to have the laws changed a few years ago.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      I think you should look into what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are doing which is FAR more profitable to the wastrel entertainment overlords. I'm hoping you know there are NO LAWS that give these three organizations the absolute right to demand you obtain their license and pay for the privilege of playing music in your business?

      The only reason they win law suits is they out spend and out lawyer the businesses THEY sue. A bar is not in the business of "attending the bar", they're about serving alcohol. You don't get to do that if the entertainment overlords decide you are unworthy (read: you didn't get ALL THREE licenses...from them).

      There is no other commodity on the planet that is licensed by a so-called productive sector business whose power is sanctioned and upheld by the governors through blatant abuse of the judicial system..

      (edited for completion - I hit the save button too soon :-).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        Absolutely, and it is one of the reasons I loathe Microsoft and Sony - they encourage this nightmare by adopting the need for codecs for specific media formats. Remember that Sony was the company which originally created the CD virus which locked up your CD drive - preventing it from playing any media it didn't recognize.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
      Think about what happens if you do not: you encourage the assassination of value creators so that such royalties are no longer paid. If I was not the one to originally create the tune or lyrics, I believe that proper attribution should be made to that owner - or his estate if I produce a variation on it.

      Do I object to Disney getting a special dispensation to protect Steamboat Willy? Yes. But then of course I have ethical standards where I wouldn't use that work for my own profit and gain either way. There are many who have no such moral quandary.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        My point was that the copyright laws have been perverted to favor of those who do not produce (wastrel great grandchildren) and discourage those who are producing today. Disney (and the great grandchildren) should be encouraged to produce new works and to reward their creativity for a shorter period, as it was before Disney's shysters used the law and their "pull" to extend the legal protection on such work.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  edweaver 3 months, 1 week ago
          Question? If the producer of a product sold it and banked the money from the sale. Then died and gave it to their grandchildren and it continued to make money for the grandchildren or as far as that goes the next generation, or more, is there a difference in the banked money or the copyright? I don't think so but teach me what I'm missing. Keep in mind, I didn't say they earned nor deserve it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 1 week ago
            The government didn't guarantee an income to the grandchildren in the hypothetical case you cited. It's similar to the case of Tolkein who sold the movie rights before he died and his descendants get the benefits. That's free enterprise. Its the government protecting the rights for 75 years after the death of the creator that I think is wrong as it means that thousands of artists who perform variations of the original works have to pay royalties to the loafers who created nothing. Most music artists barely survive financially and many great talents are financially discouraged by the government changes to the expiration of the protection (thanks to Disney's lawyers and lobbyists.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  edweaver 3 months, 1 week ago
              Not is there a guarantee that the money it sold for will make a profit but other than the death tax (which is wrong) there is nothing stopping them from making money off a good investment. I'm listening. Not sold either direction though.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 1 week ago
                I don't have a problem with them making money with their inheritance. I have a problem with the 70 year after death bonus. The law was already very generous when Disney got involved starting in 1976 and 1998. The 1909 law gave up to 56 years of copyright protection (28 yr and one renewal of 28 yr) The 1998 Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier. This is looting of the worst kind by the corporate giants against the individual artist.
                See:
                http://mentalfloss.com/article/30946/...
                https://techliberation.com/2009/08/06...
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  edweaver 3 months, 1 week ago
                  I still don't understand how that is looting. Seems to me that it would be looking once a copyright is over for someone to produce what another created. I must be missing something.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 1 week ago
                    Ask any music performer that sells recordings of their performances: who is more deserving of the revenues from their recording, themselves or the grandchildren of a composer who died in 1950?
                    There are thousands of great performers that we never hear about that end up in jobs that don't use their extraordinary talents because the government passed a copyright extension law at the request of Disney's lobbyists that makes it financially impossible for the artist to make a living as a performer.
                    What is the rationale to protect copyrighted work for 70 years after death of the creator while patents for world changing inventions are protected for only 20 years?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
          Disney DECIDED to use the law...not his shysters. They were paid hacks just like I was when I chose to work in an ice cream parlour but had to clean the toilets for the sleazy strip club next door. I agreed to be paid $2 less an hour than the guy worked the day shift...and he didn't have to clean the toilet ^-^.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
          I know what your point was, but I offer the following for your consideration:

          What you are referring to are derivative works - not original works. If someone makes cartoons based on any of Disney's original characters such as Steamboat Willy, they are not inventing anything novel. Rather, they are standing on the backs of the giants before them - be they living or dead.

          What is more, if such an one "creates" a derivative work and then markets it for personal gain, is not that individual in fact taking advantage of that prior producer's good name and the marketing association accompanying that name without paying for it? Indeed, they would be using the name of that family for their own personal gains. Whether or not the posterity of Disney did anything to further their predecessor's work in such a case is irrelevant, because in such a case the derivative producer is not infringing upon products, but upon one's very identity and name. If one's derivative works cast a negative pall on Disney's name, that same pall is therefore cast upon Disney's posterity. A name is a trademark, is it not, and subject to the same protections as copyright? Absolutely.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
            I voted you down because derivations is NOT what he's concerned with. It's the same work but generational payments.

            I always tell people when I vote them down.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
              It's an argument over what constitutes productive work and who is entitled to the fruits of it. freedomforall's argument is that since Walt Disney is dead and he was the producer that his progeny have no claim on either the profits derived nor the intellectual property acquired - including the brand which is their name.

              I completely disagree. There would be zero gain to be had by copying Disney's works and representing them in one's own products if it were not for the tremendous name recognition and marketing presence of the Disney brand. If someone were to create their own cartoon series with wholly original characters, the point would be moot because there would be no correlation between Disney's work and the other - and no corresponding boost in name recognition or marketing potential. That to me is intellectual property theft and I go into great detail below as to the reasoning.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  3 months, 1 week ago
                It doesn't have to be "recognizable" to have the appeal to copy. Otherwise, people would not be copying my little CD and giving it to others. They do it because the benefit is they don't have to pay for what costs me and the songwriters in time, labor and money to produce. If I don't make a profit because people copy my created experience, then how will I produce more?

                The most important thing for me is that people understand they are stealing the experience and giving it to others. They did not create the experience and they do not have a contract with me to give it to anyone else.

                If we don't have that understanding to start with, there is no property interest for the creator and anyone can justify copying because you "apparently" didn't take anything from the creator.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 1 week ago
                  I agree with all your points. The benefit to copying a product with tremendous name recognition is a larger market for one's knock-off goods. There is a reason why counterfeiting primarily deals in exclusive brand name items and Disney's materials are no different.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            The "derivative" works are still works of creative production. The great grandchildren of the original artist creates nothing and others adding to the creative work of one long dead is paying to support the lazy non-production of the wastrel. The law is wrong. It rewards the lazy by stealing from the productive.
            Almost everything produced today has its roots in creative work of others long dead. By the reasoning of your last post the descendants of the man who discovered fire should be paying his descendants. Yes, I take the opposite extreme case from your extreme case. Cheap light bulbs produced shoddily do not detract from the reputation of the creator of light bulbs. Disney has sullied their own "reputation" and would likely benefit from more creative people outside the campus. That line of reasoning would have killed capitalism in its crib.
            I could understand providing for the offspring of the original creator by protecting his intellectual property for 21 years after the death of the original creator, or until his children are age 21, but the current law is abominable.
            The law punishes the productive and rewards the lazy. There is no objective rationale to the current law.
            "They have set the signals in reverse—and the road is safe when the lights are the red of evil—but when the lights are the green of virtue, promising that yours is the right-of-way, you venture forth and are ground by the wheels. All over the world, she thought—those inverted lights go reaching into every land, they go on, encircling the earth. And the earth is littered with mangled cripples, who don't know what has hit them or why, who crawl as best they can on their crushed limbs through their lightless days, with no answer save that pain is the core of existence—
            and the traffic cops of morality chortle and tell them that man, by his nature, is unable to walk."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
              The point omitted from your argument is the value of intellectual capital and marketing (customer base) which accompany and are critical to the total value of a product or service. Much of the value of Disney's products is not the result of novelty or pure function, but name-recognition. There have been numerous versions of "The Little Mermaid", but they all pale in revenue in comparison to Disney's version. The same goes with "Beauty and the Beast", "Snow White", "Cinderella", and a host of others. Why? Because they carry the stamp of Disney. The original characters created by Disney - of which Steamboat Willy was the first - are creations of Disney, but make no mistake that those specific caricatures are worth billions of dollars primarily because they are attached to Disney's name and brand.

              "Cheap light bulbs produced shoddily do not detract from the reputation of the creator of light bulbs."

              They would if they were being marketed as "Edison" brand light bulbs. That distinction is the core of the argument here. It is not simply whether or not one is creating a new product. It is whether or not one is using the name of the original creator as a value-add in the total value proposition.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                "They would if they were being marketed as "Edison" brand light bulbs"
                Irrelevant. Any mickey mouse effort would have no effect on Disney's reputation because they are not being marketed as Disney.
                Disney still retains it trademark and would defend it even without the unfair copyright advantage that it created though pull.
                Disney made the investment in the "Disney" image with full knowledge that they would lose the exclusive use of Mickey based on the law. Instead of following the law they used "pull" so they would be rewarded for not producing something new. Disney wanted to assure that every t-shirt sold with a Mickey image would enrich Disney for many years to come without doing anything.
                It is a clear case of using government to prevent competition.
                Would you prefer that Xerox had maintained complete control of their copying technology forever? That is the argument you are using for Disney. Xerox should have bribed congress to lengthen the patent protection period.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                  One of the basic steps of any marketing campaign is to inform the public that your brand is out there. 90%+ of all advertising is of this type: building name-recognition and associating it with a particular product or service. Until a potential customer puts your brand in their "top choices" list, they aren't going to buy your products because you haven't established any "good will" with that customer. This effort typically costs a lot of money over an extended period of time. Political campaigns are the quintessential example of the necessity of brand advertising. That was one of Donald Trump's keys to victory - he didn't have to try to create a brand for people to recognize: he already had that through "The Apprentice" and his other business lines. Conversely, Hillary Clinton couldn't overcome the negative name-recognition that went with her name - and it doomed her just as much as her negligent attitude.

                  A Brand's name represents a certain image - an image that that company has spent a lot of time and money to create and promulgate to its audience. It used to be the panacea of marketing to get teenagers to wear your clothing line with your logo plastered all across it. It was the best advertising you could get: personal endorsement from a trusted source. Many companies are turning to social media - it is far more cost-effective to build your brand there. The end result is value for the Brand alone - notwithstanding the actual products or services it turns out.

                  Your argument seeks to delegitimize this very real source of value - and the very real infringement which can result. What is very interesting is that you cite one of the most prominent cases which actually supports my argument: that of Xerox. What was happening to Xerox was that their products and the photocopying technique were so popular that they had moved to the stage of marketing every company both dreams of and dreads - that of total common commoditization and public use: where your product is a common household name. We commonly refer to a facial tissue as a "Kleenex" even though it is the brand name of the product rather than the product itself. Band-Aid would be another example, as is Q-Tip. Xerox fell into this category. The problem to the company (any company) is that this public use can quickly destroy the Brand through overly-common use. Xerox actually had to go to court to reserve its own company name from overuse and the destruction of the name Xerox to represent a Brand rather than a particular product - that of the photocopier/photocopy process. Once that happens, anyone and everyone can use the name to represent their products because the product becomes synonymous with the name itself. All the work that went to establish name-recognition and brand value is now lost and every other competitor can now leverage it at no cost to themselves.

                  There are in actuality two issues here and unfortunately you are conflating them. The first is the value of name-association independent of any given product. Disney's history is one where Walt Disney himself spent decades developing valuable content which in turn built up the value of the Disney brand. Associating products with that Brand now makes them even more valuable because of the association with that Brand name, but that association can also be diminished if the product is bad. One example from history was the line of automobiles known as Studebakers. At one point, Studebaker was a well-reputed automobile line with increasing sales and a healthy future. Then they put out two lines of cars in back-to-back years which were both duds. People stopped buying Studebakers and the company eventually was forced into bankruptcy and dissolution as a result. Yet another example of name-association is that of Adolf. Because of Adolf Hitler, name-association has caused many parents of German children to eschew that name - once incredibly popular - so that now it is almost never heard.

                  The second problem is one of government interference, and as I already stated, on this I agree with you that the government should not have granted an exemption/extension to Disney it didn't grant to everyone else as well.

                  "Disney wanted to assure that every t-shirt sold with a Mickey image would enrich Disney for many years to come without doing anything."

                  You are completely ignoring the original investment which went into the creation and marketing of the image of Mickey Mouse in the first place. Further, you assert that your perception of non-use of the character entitles someone else to assume ownership of it. But what would be the motive of someone seeking to use Disney's images? It is nothing more than mooching off the marketing efforts which have already been done. It is theft - no matter how one wants to try to justify it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                    You keep repeating the same thing without recognition of my point. Neither of us is going to convince the other on this issue.
                    You appear to think that the government should protect Disney's control over the mouse forever just because Disney says it should. Disney had the law changed (by manipulating unethical elected representatives) to give Disney more government protection than was previously available. Did this serve any function of government ? Only if you view government as a puppet of Disney and large corporations. There was no reason for this action other than that. It siphons off the profits from thousands of creative people that do nothing with the mouse (or anything connected to Disney) and feeds those who are looters.
                    You apparently feel that Xerox should have had permanent government protection for their invention because they created it. The owners of Xerox may have thought so, too, but in that instance they were ethical and did not bribe con-gress to change the patent laws for their protection. Instead they spent their resources on R and D and created the graphic interface that almost everyone uses today on their computers. (They failed to protect their interests in that invention, but they did create it.) They knew they had a limited time with protection of their invention and they went on creating something new, accepting that the customers would be better served under the patent law as it existed ... unlike Disney and its shyster looters.
                    If Hank Rearden had been Disney's CEO, he would have found a free market solution and prospered. Even without Rearden's guidance, Disney would be very profitable without that change to the law, and thousands of individual creative people would be getting paid a full value for their productive works without causing any damage to Disney. Talented musicians world-wide are being looted by Disney's law. Its a bad law.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                      "You keep repeating the same thing without recognition of my point."

                      There are in fact two distinct issues here. The first is whether or not the extension granted to Disney for their copyright over Steamboat Willy was moral. I have already agreed with you that the government gave unacceptable special rights to Disney. They should have either extended the copyright protections for everyone or no one.

                      The second is the issue you refuse to acknowledge: the value of branding. You want to ignore the fact that considerable time and resources are spent in building up a successful brand image. The only reason someone would want to copy an image like that of Mickey Mouse is to take advantage of that brand image without paying for it. That is the mindset of the quintessential looter - not a producer. If the brand had not been in use for 75 years, one can argue that that absence of use voids claim of copyright due to expiration (what one might call squatter's rights). That is not the case, however. Disney has not ceased to use those images or the derivative versions as seen in Mickey Mouse. You can still see the original Steamboat Willy from reconstructed footage in vintage screens at Disneyland (been there, done that). Disney's other cartoon caricatures are used for profit around the globe. Disney even has its own line of retail stores in malls across America in which one can find just about anything Disney - especially the vintage characters which made Walt Disney famous: Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, et al.

                      I note that you cite Hank Rearden, but his story in Atlas Shrugged emphasizes my point. Though it continued to be called "Rearden's metal" even after his business was broken up and he was forced to give the formula to his competitors, the misuse of his invention and the resulting ill will towards Rearden was a substantial factor in eventually forcing his retirement to the Gulch. Did Dagny build the brand that was "Taggard Transcontinental"? No. She was the heir to that brand and everything associated with it. Her brother's destruction of that brand was a destruction of real value both of the company's assets and the company's name: destruction which Dagny properly abhorred. One can see other such examples in Galt's electrostatic generator (he didn't want it associated with Twentieth Century Motors), Wyatt Oil (which Wyatt would rather see burnt to the ground rather than have his name and reputation tarnished) and even D'Anconia's mines. Brand names are valuable and take on a value in and of themselves. It is entirely reasonable that Disney's descendants have an interest in their progenitor's good name because it directly reflects upon them and their futures.

                      ---
                      With regards to Xerox-PARC - Xerox made a tactical error by ignoring the use of the mouse and the GUI by Apple computers and later Microsoft. They should have vigorously pursued legal remedies and injunctions against both parties. They did not. One can cite the fact that intellectual property law with regards to the computing industry wasn't even in its infancy at that time and so the case itself would have been novel. With no precedent to rely on nor any real vision into the future of the computing industry, it is quite reasonable to conjecture that Xerox saw nothing worth a legal effort to protect. In hindsight we can criticize, but at the time no one knew how things were going to play out. See "Pirates of Silicon Valley" for wonderful insights into the early computing world - including specific highlights of the work done at Xerox-PARC (Palo Alto Research Center).
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                        Rearden never asked anyone to protect his invention. He left the door open to anyone of merit to invent a competitor to challenge his invention. Comparing that to Disney's repeated shyster efforts is not relevant to any rational point.

                        I acknowledged Disney's efforts in building their reputation several times, but in my view that was their error when they knew their exclusive rights were going to expire. So they ran to government to save them from their own stupidity. I understand your argument and I think it is irrelevant. Disney spent a fortune on it and then gets congress to protect them from the free market.
                        (There are even some legal experts who make a case that Disney never had the protection at all, but that is another issue.)
                        http://mentalfloss.com/article/30946/...
                        https://techliberation.com/2009/08/06...
                        http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjal...

                        Again, my point is that thousands of music artists are paying to support unproductive looters because Disney used government for a bail out that they did not deserve. I find your counter-arguments unconvincing.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                          "Rearden never asked anyone to protect his invention."
                          Is there textual evidence of this? Was his process a trade secret? Is it implied that if another company reverse engineered it, they would be free to make it themselves? It's been five years since I read it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                            CG, I have been reading it the past couple of weeks. I don't recall reading anything that indicated Rearden applied for a patent. I concluded that his metal was a trade secret.
                            "The lack of formal protection associated with registered intellectual property rights, however, means that a third party not bound by a signed agreement is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered, such as through reverse engineering."
                            from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_s...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                          That's your opinion, but I would note with great specificity that the copyright expiration in dispute did not apply to everything Disney produced. The primary item to which it portended related to the original Steamboat Willy production - from which sprang the indomitable Mickey Mouse some years later. To use it as an excuse to invalidate everything produced by Disney up to and including today is disingenuous.

                          Here's another question: Do you disagree with estates such as that of J.R.R. Tolkien who were paid millions of dollars for the rights to produce the box office blockbuster movies based on? It would seem to be an example of the very same argument...
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                            I did not invalidate any of Disney's "production". I have great respect for those who produce. I do not respect Disney's looters asking for longer federal protection on all Disney's creations.
                            The law that Disney had changed does apply to all the things that Disney and others produced, not just to Mickey, but it was the rights to Mickey that was going to expire each time the federal law expiration period was changed.
                            http://www.tomwbell.com/images/(C)Ter...

                            The 1831 copyright act had adequate protection for Tolkein's works. Neither Tolkein, nor his estate asked government for any extension to that protection. I cannot predict what new works would have been created with the funds if the payments had not gone to the estate.
                            I am not aware what the Tolkein heirs have produced other than lawsuits against the production companies. However, I think the agreements were made while Tolkein was alive and clearly he had the rights to contract regarding his own works.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                              The reason the copyright extension was written was primarily to protect Steamboat Willy and by derivation Mickey Mouse. Eventually, yes, all of Disney's other works will also fall outside the protection of copyright, but their period has not come yet.

                              I still assert, however, that those who would want to use those works - be they Mickey Mouse, Steamboat Willy, etc. - under their own name and without compensating Disney's estate are frauds seeking to enrich themselves by use of someone else's ideas - especially when those characters are still in use and production by the company Disney founded.

                              The reason I bring up Tolkien is that the crux of your argument is that Disney's posterity are illegally/immorally enriching themselves solely as a result of being heirs to Disney's works and fortune - not because they themselves produced anything. Tolkein's posterity certainly fits in that group as well, but Tolkien himself had nothing to do with Peter Jackson's productions yet Jackson had to purchase the rights to produce the blockbuster films from Tolkien's estate. (There was a cartoon version of The Hobbit as well as one of The Lord of the Rings way back in the 70's that may have been negotiated directly with Tolkien. Though I've seen the works in question, I haven't delved into the legal details there.) My question was whether or not your criticism extends to any family heir of novel ideas, since it would seem to be another example of precisely the same issue you are arguing here.

                              PS - Tolkien is British, so the 1831 copyright act wouldn't be very useful...
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                            Not wanting to change the subject completely, blarman, but I just noticed another example of productivity being stymied for years due to a patent. (I'm not taking any position against the patent laws, btw.)
                            Back in the 70's Dr Oskar Heil invented a new type of tweeter and got it patented in the late 70s. ESS marketed it in loudspeakers in the US and Europe until 2009. No one else offered the technology and only well heeled audiophiles could (or would) afford them. I remember hearing them long ago and adding them to my buy list when I could afford them. They had a realism that other designs could not match.
                            In recent years since the patent expired, dozens of companies are now using the technology to the advantage of music lovers.
                            Bob Carver put the technology in his latest speakers ($22,000/pair) and in order to have them made without spending a fortune on the manufacturing molds, Carver made a deal with the Chinese manufacturer that they could make and sell the tweeter components under their name.
                            So now, any DIYer can buy the tweeter component for $30 to $100 and design/build his own version.
                            Carver's version:
                            https://www.stereophile.com/content/b...
                            I bought another variant from Emotiva not long ago for use as my computer speakers.
                            https://www.stereophile.com/content/e...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                              It's interesting information, but I'm not sure what your point is other than to say that now you can get a cool set of speakers. If you would care to elaborate on how this converges with our previous conversation, it might give me something upon which further conjecture would be possible.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo