The Assassination of The Public Domain by the Coward Mickey Mouse.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Assassination of The Public Domain by the Coward Mickey Mouse.

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

14 years is too long. gently caress copyright. :filez:

for life.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2018 21:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 04:24

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Easy Diff posted:

But I do think there's a case that people shouldn't be allowed to make fan-films that directly include existing, still-in-use characters.

I'm having trouble imagining who this hurts. Why not? I'm amenable to "for 14 years, you must attribute works to the original copyright holder", so you'd at least get signal boosted on an attribution page somewhere, but who is harmed by Roman Pierce fan films being sold on youtube?

I don't like when advertisers create purposely misleading products, and that certainly would cover attempting to pass a fan work off as created by the original artist, but beyond that I don't think there's any reason to prevent those things from existing.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2018 23:21

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Craptacular! posted:

I'm gonna admit I'm one of "those people" who are obsessed with the Disney company and it's products and obsessively collects photos of theme park break rooms that are off-limits to the public. I think there needs to be a distinction between reference works and pop culture. Reference works are information and the public is owed information at some point. Pop culture has a much longer shelf life than it did when copyright started. Very few people wanted to listen to 1940s swing music by the 70s, but 80s hits are still being listened to and covered and remixed today.

I don't see what this has to do with it. It's really cool that works are staying in the public consciousness for longer, but I don't think the point of copyright should be to cover the entire period that something is known or discussed - quite the opposite. I think songs that have lasted since the 80s ought to be treated as irrevocable pieces of american culture, something that belongs to us collectively rather than whoever happened to pay for it to be recorded 40 years ago. Surely they've been amply compensated in the intervening time. I think that it's absurd for one company to own an idea indefinitely, even if it's present in nearly every american's head. At its most extreme, the shareholders of the disney corporation had about as much to do with mickey mouse's conception as I did.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2018 21:01

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Craptacular! posted:

You'll basically have new Eminiem albums alongside some reality star's cover of The Real Slim Shady.

I don't really think you would - at the very least I also strongly support heavily regulated advertising and marketing rules where any attempt to willfully misrepresent the author of a work would constitute fraud. I think requiring fair and accurate attribution in perpetuity isn't unreasonable, though I'm sure could be misused by corporate copyright holders making frivolous claims. I doubt there's a huge audience for lovely covers of eminem songs to the point that eminem himself feels any (financial) losses, and if the cover isn't lovely and does have a huge audience then well, someone's created something new that people want and it's hard to be upset over that, even if eminem is personally irritated.

evilweasel posted:

Artists do feel territorial about their art though, and I have some sympathy for the idea that an artist who still owns their copyrights should have the right to control the use of the work during their lifetime.

I can't really pretend not to empathize here. I think accurate attribution is a fair demand from artists who create things. It'd honestly be hard to get upset at people making crappy knockoffs of my works as long as they aren't attributed to me. It's interesting because I think the works that most need to be public domain are the most popular or influential ones, as they represent the lion's share of the cultural influence, while the artists most in need of protecting are the less popular ones, who could be ripped off freely and no one knows who they are beyond a name on an attribution page. Maybe a law differentiating these would be reasonable?

# ¿ Dec 11, 2018 21:20

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Helsing posted:

I have this horrible feeling that in a few years the hottest issue in I/P isn't going to be related to medicine, the cultural commons or anything directly relevant to our well being. It will be the controversy over using photo realistic CGI to make it look like various celebrities, politicians and fictional characters are having sex with each other.

This already exists and now that you say it, I suspect you are right - it will becomes a much bigger issue than it is already. (Apparently this content is banned on pornhub and reddit.)

# ¿ Dec 11, 2018 22:08

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Like, if anyone hasn't seen it, you should watch this as a reference for what this is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0

# ¿ Dec 11, 2018 22:15

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

The comparison to theft never made any sense - the bad part about stealing something from someone is that they no longer have it. The fact that, after you steal, you have something nice you want is actually good. It's just that the bad feeling the other guy has, that of having something they worked hard for taken from them, is generally worse than the good feeling of getting something. This sort of reasoning lends itself to thinking about exceptions also - it naturally handles the starving person stealing food, as the comparison is no longer true - starving to death is obviously worse than having replaceable food stolen. All of this makes calling downloading a movie "stealing" absurd. You can call it unethical, or copyright infringement, or describe the negative consequences of large groups of people choosing to download movies, but there is no theft involved, no one doesn't have a movie because you downloaded it.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2018 23:26

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

I think it's fine if they have to roll their own security to protect their 3d model files. That's how it works for every other industry that keeps trade secrets. It'd still be illegal to steal the model files but, if it gets leaked, it's fair game for 3rd parties. If you get your hands on the coke formula you can make coke, if you get shrek.3ds or whatever the hell, you get shrek.

Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 12, 2018

# ¿ Dec 12, 2018 20:58

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

It works fine for the financial industry, the flavoring industry, the chipmaking industry, or any other industry that relies on trade secrets instead of copyright/patents. I don't think there's anything exceptional about movie making that necessitates it be any different.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2018 21:06

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

The reason no one else can make and sell coke is absolutely positively not because no one has ever been able to sneak the coke formula out of the factory.

Legally speaking? Of course it is. I guess I should say that's why it's limited - we have no clue if anyone worldwide has successfully copied the formula and used it. A coke formula is not the same thing as a successful soft-drink business but it'd be absolutely legal for a third party not bound by coke's NDAs to publish it and use it if they found out.

Stealing it is illegal, but if it gets stolen and published and everyone copies it and starts making coke, coca-cola is SOL. (Of course, their business will be fine, because it turns out that people want the Coke logo printed on the can.) They don't have a patent, which would get time-limited exclusive rights to make it, because they don't want to publicly reveal what the formula is. The point of patents is to reduce the number of things that are kept as trade secrets, and by choosing to keep it a trade secret instead, they de facto surrender the right to enforce exclusivity should the trade secret become widely known.

The idea that coke is successful because of a mythical "secret formula" is silly anyway, a recipe is not a manufacturing process let alone a business.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2018 21:52

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Crain posted:

Take the case of when someone DID steal the Coke formula and tried to sell it to Pepsi. Pepsi knew better than to accept stolen information. It's not just "it get's out and you're free to use it" for everyone but the original thief.

Yeah - there's legal protection, you can get in legal trouble for stealing them, but if someone else steals them and publishes them, my understanding is they are fair game. The industries that rely on them tend to be the ones where someone stealing and using them is completely unverifiable. Did the other flavor company stumble upon the bizarre molecule that makes food kinda taste like banana, or did someone steal it? It's hard to prove even if it's the latter. Or maybe they can prove it but it requires admitting what the molecule is in court, so now the other company can't make it because it was obtained illegally, but companies in other countries sure can and will undercut you. Unlike soft drinks, my understanding is that that industry sells a mostly undifferentiated product - if you can produce the molecule at scale for cheaper, you can supplant the existing supplier.

That pepsi story is silly because like, what the hell would pepsi do with the coke formula? People don't buy pepsi because they want coke. It was an absurd plan to begin with. If there was any value in those documents, and they published them in a newspaper or online or whatever, pepsi would probably be in the clear to use them. (I...don't think they would anyway. A formula is not a business, period. You don't get to supply a mcdonald's coke machine just because you have a recipe for coke.) So yeah, pepsi isn't going to respond positively to someone calling and saying "so, uhh, wanna buy some trade secrets", but I think if they were even one step more subtle than that, they could have.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2018 23:22

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Crain posted:

^^Why is this Ocean's 11 hypothetical the thing you're hung up on?^^

Read the second part of the post. Legally discovering the secret is allowed. Using stolen information is not, even in the case of it being leaked publicly.

Granted in the hypothetical that the Coke thieves took the recipe and took out a full page ad in the New York Times detailing it, Coke would then have to go after anyone using it in court and prove they were using the stolen information in their new "coke like" soda. But even with superfluous ingredients added to try and mask the formula, it's likely easily provable.

Interesting - looks like I'm wrong but it's complicated. My current conclusion in the hypothetical situation is that NYT is definitely liable, but folks who have no reason to suspect NYT was using misappropriated trade secrets could freely design a product around it, but it's murky. It's also unclear what would happen if it were a foreign newspaper instead - it doesn't seem like plausible deniability would be all that hard to create. (In one case someone was found guilty of misappropriation but the judge deemed that he couldn't order the content be taken down because of the first amendment, pretty weird.)

# ¿ Dec 13, 2018 00:03

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

No copyright would probably mean more video games are client-server - does the presence of the legal system really change much there? I don't think "it's illegal" is the primary or secondary reason why I don't pirate games, personally, though obviously I don't speak for most people. There's tons of game piracy anyway and companies already undertake their own methods of avoiding it. A movie is kinda different because no matter what form it comes in, the end result is sound and video which can be captured and recreated.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2018 17:38

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

I'm sad that I live in a world where people consider paying for software that doesn't include source code.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2018 17:39

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

evilweasel posted:

Algorithms are not copyrightable, the code itself is.

I'm not really sure what the benefit to anyone of making only client-server models work for code.

My point is really that companies are doing that anyway because the legal system doesn't really stop anyone from pirating software. The law in this case is neither necessary (because of client-server models) nor sufficient (because everything else already is pirated a ton, regardless of it being illegal). Removing the law would mean you could download software from somewhere reputable instead of freegamez.ru and thus reduce the spread of viruses and botnets and all that.

If I were in charge I wouldn't stop there and you'd probably have to distribute source code for both client in server but I'll stand by software copyright law already doing very little in 2018.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2018 18:10

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Helsing posted:

Since you're assuming a gigantic change in one area of society (basically the abolition or significant modification of an entire form of property) why are you assuming everything else would be the exact same? It makes no logical sense to assume ID software would exist in the same manner that they do now if the entire basis of I/P were radically different. Presumably the abolition of existing copyright would be linked to a new fundraising mechanism or support system for creative types.

Also it's 1994 and I'm making no attempt to make think up laws that take 1994 into account - in 2018 you buy software on the internet, not at walmart. So yes, a storefront could pop up selling pirated games in my hypothetical, but to the extent that vendors selling software will still exist, it should be obvious which one is "legit", and paying for software on another platform would be awfully silly if they're available for free and don't support the creator.

Again I'm fine with copyright existing in the sense that you have to attribute the original author and can specify whether or not you're buying direct from them. Misleading buyers as to the authenticity of something feels criminally wrong to me in a way that merely distributing it without permission does not and I'm fine if walmart.

Okay, okay, law proposal: Copyright exists in the sense that there is still a copyright holder. If you wish to sell copyrighted software without a license, you have to include a big, obvious, cigarette-style disclaimer that you are not the copyright holder, and that the software can be downloaded for free on the internet instead of paying for it here.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2018 20:32

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Get a judge in the uploader's country to order the uploader to remove it, just like if a guy is illegally selling tickets to watch his transformers 4 DVD at his chicken shack at the mall. Why does being on the internet change anything?

# ¿ Dec 22, 2018 01:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 04:24

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Crain posted:

I'm talking about the case where industry groups are taking down legal, fair use, content or even completely original content over insane justifications. The difference mainly comes in to how the DMCA applies to the internet and how many sites just go "look they can sue us harder than you can so tough poo poo".

This would be like Universal Media Group being able to come to a film festival and just take all the copies of your student film because a car in the background was playing a song they own loud enough to hear for two seconds.

Yeah I understand. I think you could legally protect neutral content hosts. They don't have to take anything down without the copyright claim against the uploader being upheld by a judge in the uploader's country. The idea is that court case would be between the copyright holder and the uploader, not the content host. I mean, there's still the issue that the court system is stacked in favor of the big corporation, but that's sort of outside the scope of the copyright thread. It's hard to have fair use be meaningful if you can't trust judges to recognize and uphold it.

Rerouting the revenue after a successful ruling is much better than taking down the video and asking questions later. You could hold ad funds in escrow when the claim is made and pay to whoever wins once the case finishes. This hurts uploaders who are dependent on the revenue now so I'd like to see a penalty for a claim that's rejected.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2018 02:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Assassination of The Public Domain by the Coward Mickey Mouse.