There's no such thing as copyright but I still want you to pay for using my stuff
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
I always tell people when I vote them down.
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 :-).
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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.
Load more comments...