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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What point precisely do you think I am not acknowledging? And are you confusing acknowledgement with agreement?

Again, all irrelevant to my point that you refuse to acknowledge. I am not wasting my time with any further replies.

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.

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...

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?

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.

Good Luck.

My first goal is a principled populace. Without that, it's really just a moot point totally.

I'm going to be presenting a link soon to something called "Principles of Libertarianism" which will, hopefully, be a modest start.

A "thing" is not an experience. You are comparing chalk and cheese. I voted you down for it.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...