Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Fair Use Creep

Fair Use Creep
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 05:45 AM
 
Content owners warn Congress of “fair use creep,” draw ridicule — Tech News and Analysis

"If an environment exists that does not provide adequate copyright protection and blockbuster films become unaffordable and unprofitable due to the threat of piracy, this new and thriving 3D industry will be significantly hampered."

Rule 8:

     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 03:03 PM
 
In other news, "Public Domain creep" will become a real problem in 2019, when works from 1923 begin falling through to the public domain again. Mickey will be needing some more protection before then.

I've noticed well-written blockbusters do fine. And a severe impact on 3D films would be a plus.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 05:04 PM
 
Let's be fair (in a snarky, actually unfair kind of way). Mickey Mouse was 100% original, they don't have a right to protect that?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 05:28 PM
 
People are lining up for some free Steamboat Willie, I tell ya.

I'm very much enjoying this circus, what little sympathy that existed for the MPAA is evaporating like dew on an Arizona morning.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 05:36 PM
 
Normally I'd be scared Congress would listen to these people, but you know what?

Go ahead. Let 4chan beat on you some more. I've got popcorn.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 07:22 PM
 
Ummm...like congresscritters like to get lots of campaign contributions from large studios? Yeah, I think that's it.

Great Rule 8 post, by the way.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's be fair (in a snarky, actually unfair kind of way). Mickey Mouse was 100% original, they don't have a right to protect that?
...Forever?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
...Forever?
It's a good question. I feel like if the IP is still being used and new work being created, it kind of sucks to take it away from them. My gut feeling is famous stuff like this slipping into public domain means a huge devaluing and loss in quality. Imagine if The Asylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia's rip off movies got to have the same title as the IP their mimicking.


This may be a bad metaphor, but it feels like Pepsi losing the rights to its name. Everyone's free to make a soda (or a mouse cartoon character), but getting throw the name on package is what gives it legs at this point.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's a good question. I feel like if the IP is still being used and new work being created, it kind of sucks to take it away from them. My gut feeling is famous stuff like this slipping into public domain means a huge devaluing and loss in quality. Imagine if The Asylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia's rip off movies got to have the same title as the IP their mimicking.
But Walt Disney is long dead. Are his heirs more talented than any random imitator that comes along?


This may be a bad metaphor, but it feels like Pepsi losing the rights to its name. Everyone's free to make a soda (or a mouse cartoon character), but getting throw the name on package is what gives it legs at this point.
I guess the distinction is between copyright (new creativity is needed to produce new product) and trademark (the same old creativity is just duplicated to produce new product). Right?
Are we talking about accuracy of labeling (protecting the consumer from fraud), or about making talent worth more money? Because any copyright term that survives the author's death only serves the latter, while arbitrarily finite copyright terms serve both the former and the latter.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But Walt Disney is long dead. Are his heirs more talented than any random imitator that comes along?
I may be undermining my own argument here, but does it matter? I guess my problem is I see Mickey as a sort Corporate Heirloom. The rub is, let's say Disney goes bankrupt; Logically they should be able to sell said Heirloom, right (That's what Marvel did with the film studios). But I don't like that idea at all (Now we have movie studios rebooting and churning out superhero sequels in order to maintain their control of the IP).

...and in the internet age, it's up to the random imitator to prove his worth. In the games industry, you see people modding already established games to demonstrate their skills and then getting hired by that games developer.



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I guess the distinction is between copyright (new creativity is needed to produce new product) and trademark (the same old creativity is just duplicated to produce new product). Right?
Are we talking about accuracy of labeling (protecting the consumer from fraud), or about making talent worth more money? Because any copyright term that survives the author's death only serves the latter, while arbitrarily finite copyright terms serve both the former and the latter.
It's an important distinction to note. I mean, do I give a shit about Felix the Cat or Betty Boop passing into public domain? Nope. Would their 'brands' be devalued by such a transaction? I doubt it.

Its a really odd stance – I'm almost arguing that PD should be avoided my measuring popularity or value. And I have to think its tinged by nostalgia.


Here's another weird metaphor – making MM public domain is like taking a privately owned car and making it a community vehicle. I don't imagine many good things happening.

Like I said, this isn't a well thought out stance, its just a feeling. Likely colored from being a creative person myself. I'd hate to see my idea bastardized and milked. (But again, with IP rights I'd be long dead, so should I care? What if I like what my heirs were doing?)
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 09:05 PM
 
Spider Robinson story: "Melancholy Elephants." Read it. Then think about real world "forever" copyrights...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2013, 12:36 AM
 
The fundamental issue with the length of copyright is stewardship.

Disney has the resources to be the stewards of IP they created over a century ago. If they want to do this, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be allowed to do so.

The problem is that's an unreasonable obligation to place on smaller entities. If they don't live up to the obligation, it's against the law to do it for them.

Let's be frank. When I say "don't live up to the obligation" I really mean "take up the obligation at all". Vast swaths of are cultural heritage are going to get destroyed because the right person wasn't thinking a century ahead.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2013, 02:53 AM
 
You're coming at it from the wrong angle. Copyright is a social contract. We (the public) desire more arts and sciences, so we (through Congress) give out a form of contract. Anyone who creates new content can exclusively distribute (sell, usually) with certain exceptions (fair use, criticism). At the end of the contract, the public gets what it wants - more content in the public domain.

However, big content creators found that sending money to politicians could produce copyright extensions. ie - the contract term gets extended. Studios get financial benefit, the public ... benefits from higher-paid politicians. This has resulted in most of the 20th century content staying behind paywalls. They got their exclusive opportunity to profit - then got it again, and again.

The public domain is not a prison, it is why copyright exists. To encourage new content to reach the public domain (eventually). Only they've been reneging on their end of the deal. The studios love content already in the public domain - look at all the fairy tale movies lately. No licensing fees required to tell (and retell, and reboot) classic fairy tales. But they never want to give their own creations back.

Regarding Mickey Mouse, you guys are confusing copyright with trademarks. If a copyright runs out, that specific work can be reproduced without permission. ie - the old MM movies / comics / stories from 1923 become sharable without legal concern. I think derivative works would be allowed, but only on the 1923 MM, which is visibly different from the modern MM.

All the later movies would remain under (c) until each of their terms pass. Currently 95 years after creation, even though we only promised 14 years at the time, with optional 14 year extension.
( Last edited by reader50; Jul 30, 2013 at 03:06 AM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2013, 01:00 PM
 
The thing is, I'm willing to give Disney their paywall. For as long as they want it too. Just let people extend their copyright.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2013, 07:00 PM
 
Thought I'd chuck in a grenade.

I argue the value of what copyright gives you as a content creator is rapidly diminishing, and the endgame is it having a value of zero.

If your content is infinitely reproducible, there is simply no law of heaven or earth which will let you control the supply.

If you don't control the supply, that is going to necessitate a change in your business model. One of the first changes you should make is not to turn down free advertising. Someone altering and distributing your content is free advertising.

So, copyright gives me a promise it can't keep, and the ability to limit my content's exposure... on top of a century long obligation to maintain it.

Gee... thanks.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 31, 2013 at 07:11 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thought I'd chuck in a grenade.

I argue the value of what copyright gives you as a content creator is rapidly diminishing, and the endgame is it having a value of zero.

If your content is infinitely reproducible, there is simply no law of heaven or earth which will let you control the supply.

If you don't control the supply, that is going to necessitate a change in your business model. One of the first changes you should make is not to turn down free advertising. Someone altering and distributing your content is free advertising.

So, copyright gives me a promise it can't keep, and the ability to limit my content's exposure... on top of a century long obligation to maintain it.

Gee... thanks.
Therefore... restricting fair use would be all pain and no gain? Might as well let it creep freely in that case.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 04:35 PM
 
Exactly! I'm at the forefront of the creeper movement.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2