Scott Ingram wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Mayhar" <frank at exit.com> > > >> Scott Ingram wrote: >>> [Most of the rant elided, since it can more or less be summarized >>> as:] You all seem so concerned that people may make money off their >>> own hard work. I've yet to see any CONCRETE examples of how this >>> hurts anyone..aside from those who wish to steal from creators and >>> benefiting off of their years of hard work and self-promotion. >>> >>> Why are you so afraid that people will prosper? This NOT a zero-sum >>> game! >> >> Well, I dunno about others, but _I'm_ pissed off that Mickey Mouse >> (in the form Disney animated as "Steamboat Willie") won't go into >> the public domain next year, as it should. Copyright was for life >> plus 14 years, then Congress extended that to 28 years. Then in >> 1976 they extended it to 50 years and in '97 again to 70 years. >> >> "Perpetual copyright on the installment plan." >> >> Read >> > http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/what.htm > l >> for some real information about the topic. > From the above link: > "According to a Wall Street Journal article of October 1997, heirs and > assignees of creative composers from the 1920's have already enjoyed > millions of dollars of extra royalty income as a result of that > extension. The 1998 term extension provides these noncreative > recipients with another 20 years of such royalties, all paid out of > the pockets of the public. " > > First of all, if I create something of lasting value, I sure as hell > want the rights to stay with my heirs as long as possible. I'm sure > the general public is very nice and all, but I really prefer my own > family over strangers off the street. And if I did prefer strangers > over the general public, I'd sign papers to relinquish my rights or > I'd sign them over to the charity of my choice. Like the author of the Peter Pan stories did so they could get cornholed by disney for the rights? I don't know the specifics but I'm sure disney made a 100/1 return off that. > > Second, I hold exception to "out of the pockets of the public". Some > of you seem to have some sort of blind hatred of, or prejudice > against, corporations. I really don't know why, after all, they have > to pay royalties as well. Also, this money isn't STOLEN from the > public or taken from their pockets against their will. The public > pays the royalties in return for the pleasure of seeing a play or > hearing music. Would the music/play/work of art be more dearly loved > if it was free to all? I doubt it. Hmm I differ in opinion to that I place a lower value on art done _for_ profit than that done from pure creative interest. Just Like I'd place a lower value on paying to have sex with someone than sharing that experience freely. > >> Yeah, people are prospering under the current laws, but it the >> problem is that the ones that are prospering the most are the >> _heirs_ of those who got the copyrights in the first place. Did you >> know that as of the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act in 1997, >> _nothing_ will go into the public domain for twenty years? Nothing. > > See my above comment. Honestly, I'd rather have my heirs benefit than > total strangers or some company in Hong Kong pumping out t-shirts > with my characters/quotes on them. > >> People build on the stuff that went before. Steve should of course >> be safe, but how safe should Disney's works be; the man has been in >> the ground for almost fifty years! > > Is it really hurting you that you can't make Mickey Mouse t-shirts, or > publish your depictions of Minnie Mouse in lewd positions? Yes. I'd be a more complete individal if I could juxtapose the icon of an empire whom was once dedicated to entertainment and inspiration and now is quite literally actively putting their interest above their patrons. > > The Disney corporation has been working with, promoting, developing, > and becoming identified with, Mickey Mouse for a long long time. I > see no good reason that other businesses should benefit from this > hard work to the detriment of Disney shareholders.... some of whom > may be mail-list members... or the parents of same. (AFAIK, neither > I or my parents own stock in Disney) > It's not the buisinesses that should benefit its the people whom at this point have clearly purchased the right to.