I find it's usually people who have no original ideas who so militantly defend copyright. Someone like Disney goes and steals his ideas for cartoons (Mickey is a blatant ripoff and all Disney movies are nothing but rehashed fairy tales that are public domain), then he defends "his work" in court, probably because his product is so inferior to what is potentially possible that he must prevent any competition.
And the thing with Disney was, everything became "Walt Disney's" this and that, so that it wasn't J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, it was Disney's Pan. Not Carlo Collodi's Pinocchio, Walt Disney's Pinocchio. Even Winnie-the-Pooh suddenly became less A.A. Milne's and became known as Walt Disney's Winnie the Pooh (without the hyphens).
The irony is even more striking considering that it was the Disney Company that lobbied hard for an extension of copyright terms to protect their intellectual "property", when the company has been living for years off of works created by others or already in the public domain.
Both Mickey Mouse and the first Winnie-the-Pooh book (now owned by the Disney corporation) would have become public domain in 2001, if not for the Copyright Term Extension Act. Of course, even in 2019, they may not become public domain, as Congress could extend copyright again and theoretically forever (surely not the intent of the U.S. Constitution's original provision for copyright protection).
It makes sense. Liars trust no one, adulterers never trust their partners, and thieves always lock their doors. It shouldn't be shocking that those who become wealthy off the work of others are so protective of their material.
Real artists don't care about reproductions, pirating, counterfeits, imitators, or intellectual property in general. Their relatives do, and the hacks who are nothing but one-hit wonders do. Those people are not worth protecting.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.
I find it's usually people who have no original ideas who so militantly defend copyright. Someone like Disney goes and steals his ideas for cartoons (Mickey is a blatant ripoff and all Disney movies are nothing but rehashed fairy tales that are public domain), then he defends "his work" in court, probably because his product is so inferior to what is potentially possible that he must prevent any competition.
ReplyDeleteAnd the thing with Disney was, everything became "Walt Disney's" this and that, so that it wasn't J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, it was Disney's Pan. Not Carlo Collodi's Pinocchio, Walt Disney's Pinocchio. Even Winnie-the-Pooh suddenly became less A.A. Milne's and became known as Walt Disney's Winnie the Pooh (without the hyphens).
ReplyDeleteThe irony is even more striking considering that it was the Disney Company that lobbied hard for an extension of copyright terms to protect their intellectual "property", when the company has been living for years off of works created by others or already in the public domain.
Both Mickey Mouse and the first Winnie-the-Pooh book (now owned by the Disney corporation) would have become public domain in 2001, if not for the Copyright Term Extension Act. Of course, even in 2019, they may not become public domain, as Congress could extend copyright again and theoretically forever (surely not the intent of the U.S. Constitution's original provision for copyright protection).
It makes sense. Liars trust no one, adulterers never trust their partners, and thieves always lock their doors. It shouldn't be shocking that those who become wealthy off the work of others are so protective of their material.
ReplyDeleteReal artists don't care about reproductions, pirating, counterfeits, imitators, or intellectual property in general. Their relatives do, and the hacks who are nothing but one-hit wonders do. Those people are not worth protecting.
Itchy & Sratchy. Itchy & Sratchy.
ReplyDelete