Fvck you Disney! Fvck you Supreme Court!

[classy]

Hmm if they are the property of Disney, then whats the problem. I think they got this one right.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: classy
Hmm if they are the property of Disney, then whats the problem. I think they got this one right.

Disney is not the problem here. Disney is simply the proponent who got the copyright extended.

Anyways, let's use an analogy here. Say I invented the internal combustion engine back around the turn of the century. If the patent process were the same as the copyright process, I could today have a monopoly on anything that used an internal combustion engine. No GM, no Honda, no Toyota, just Dudd Inc. After all, it's only fair that since I created it, I should be the one to profit from it. Sure, I have no competition in this sector, so good luck getting anything with more than a hundred horsepower. After all, why would I make a sports car when I can simply make todays Kia and sell it for whatever price I want.

However, this is the situation that is happening today with copyrights. True, a physical product and an original story are different beasts, but the law requires different standards. Patents run for twenty years while copyrights run for life + approximately 50-75 years. That is more than enough time for the original creator to benefit, so let someone else take a crack at improving the story. As others have said, without public domain, Disney hasn't produced Hunchback of Notre Dame, they haven't made The Little Mermaid, and etc.

 

[ElFenix]

i liked the title of the thread when it was less attacking of an institution that was doing its constitutional duty and not overstepping its bounds

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
And the law says 'limited time'. And the Supreme Court, whose interpretation of US law matters (yours matters even less than mine 🙂 ), determined that extending copyrights does not violate the constitution.
And of course there was lobbying. There is lobbying by BOTH sides of EVERY issue decided in Washington. You could possibly question Congress' motivations at the extension, but once upheld by the US Supreme Court you have little argument.

It might be legal in the letter of the law, but it's against the spirit of the law. It would be illegal to create infinite copyright, but it's legal to extend the copyright for fixed amount of time over and over and over again.

I think I might accept the ruling of the US Supreme Court in regards to US law rather than the opinion of some crazy Finn on a messageboard. 😛

Word....

 

[Bachopoet]

Originally posted by: spankyOO7
i dont really get what u mean by public domain. isn't cinderella also created by disney?

Sir, you deserve to be crucified. Go read a book sometime, you moron.
I reccommend Grimm's Fairy Tales. Grimm was, by the way, another person who wrote stories based on things that were Public Domain. Grimm didn't write Cinderella either, yet his stories are Public Domain now.

By the way... Disney is not exactly IMPROVING any of these stories, so they're NOT fulfilling the requirement of the previously constitutional amendment, which is advocates art and science. Disney takes great classic stuff and turns it into crap! Make no mistake, this is about money.