Post Reply On the double standards the US gov't does on enforcing copyright and not copyfraud.
67347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Online
Posted 4/5/16
Many home video releases have the FBI warning of "up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000" for copyright infringement. Also, such infringement is enforced. While the FBI site calls copyright infringement "theft", the '85 case SCOTUS case "Dowling v. United States" disagreed.

Why isn't the opposite criminal offense enforced and give the same penalties? By this, I mean a person who lays a false copyright claim to a work another person owns or something that's in public domain. Per 17 USC § 506(c), the person who does a false copyright claim will be fined $2500.

Making a false crime claim should carry the same penalties/sentence if that crime did happen. Also, copyfraud basically isn't enforced by the gov't.
Posted 4/5/16
Isn't this what that whole DMCA thing is about? sorta.
Posted 4/5/16
I agree that copyfraud should be enforced and probably more strict then copyright since criminals are free from authority to use this medium to steal from others from their requests of licensing fees.
Posted 4/5/16
Not surprising considering copyright legislation for the 20th century was bought by major copyright holders and it will be the same for the 21st. The U.S trade rep is a mouth peace for the likes of Hollywood and the pharmaceutical industry and others.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/5/16
The primary instigator for changes in copyright law over the last 40 years is Disney.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/5/16
I would like to point out that Mickey Mouse is trademarked, and that having copyright limits decreased won't get separate him from Disney.
Also, topic. Very complicated.
17205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 4/5/16
I think it has to do with not scaring people from carrying a suit on someone who might have stole their content.
Posted 4/5/16 , edited 4/5/16

Nobodyofimportance wrote:

I would like to point out that Mickey Mouse is trademarked, and that having copyright limits decreased won't get separate him from Disney.
Also, topic. Very complicated.


It's not so much that Disney owns Mickey Mouse, it's that they manage to extend copyright each time his is about expire, which means we don't get a lot of other stuff that would have passed into the public domain. Trademark might prevent people creating new Mickey stuff, but those old movies could be distributed and archived freely.

17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/5/16

prh99 wrote:

It's not so much that Disney owns Mickey Mouse, it's that they manage to extend copyright each time his is about expire, which means we don't get a lot of other stuff that would have passed into the public domain. Trademark might prevent people creating new Mickey stuff, but those old movies could be distributed and archived freely.


The movies that were created by Disney?

It's their stuff. Why shouldn't they retain the right to direct the way their company's products are used?
Their products represent the company, so losing creative control of their copyrighted works would give leeway for people to employ their products in a way that misrepresents their company values. And their movies are vividly iconic, you can recognize the Disney princesses from 40 years ago instantly.

Besides, copyright lasts for the life of the creator + 50 years or something, so I'd guess they retain the copyright to those regardless.
85273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Louisville, KY
Online
Posted 4/5/16
This is a big problem with YouTube in that literally any user can claim copyright to any video even if it is purely someone doing a vlog and flag a video for 2 weeks for a content creator without any punishment. YouTube assumes the YouTube content creator as guilty until proven innocent.
Posted 4/5/16 , edited 4/5/16

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


prh99 wrote:

It's not so much that Disney owns Mickey Mouse, it's that they manage to extend copyright each time his is about expire, which means we don't get a lot of other stuff that would have passed into the public domain. Trademark might prevent people creating new Mickey stuff, but those old movies could be distributed and archived freely.


The movies that were created by Disney?

It's their stuff. Why shouldn't they retain the right to direct the way their company's products are used?
Their products represent the company, so losing creative control of their copyrighted works would give leeway for people to employ their products in a way that misrepresents their company values. And their movies are vividly iconic, you can recognize the Disney princesses from 40 years ago instantly.

Besides, copyright lasts for the life of the creator + 50 years or something, so I'd guess they retain the copyright to those regardless.


It's life plus 70 in the U.S. Copyright is suppose to be for a limited time, that's the bargain creator gets a government backed monopoly and after that period expires other people get to distribute freely and make derivative works (the promotion of useful arts and science). Disney and others have profited immensely from the public domain work like the work of the Brothers Grimm and Aesop's Fables etc. So when they keep extending copyright they are pulling the ladder up behind them and ensuring no one can do with Disney what Disney did with the work of the Brothers Grimm etc.
They've turned copyright into a corporate welfare system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales

Edit:
Also, there is more to a story than a characters name or appearance. So yes trademark is a concern but not insurmountable.
67347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Online
Posted 4/5/16
Even when the copyright of a character has expired, their name being trademarked means making a book or movie of them prevents you from using it in the title unless you get approval of the corporation or estate that owns the trademark. For clarification, this isn't about trademark or copyright extension.



17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/5/16 , edited 4/5/16

prh99 wrote:
It's life plus 70 in the U.S. Copyright is suppose to be for a limited time, that's the bargain creator gets a government backed monopoly and after that period expires other people get to distribute freely and make derivative works (the promotion of useful arts and science). Disney and others have profited immensely from the public domain, the work of the Grimm brothers especially. So when they keep extending copyright they are pulling the later up behind them and ensuring no one can do with Disney what Disney did with the work of the Grimm brothers.
They've turned copyright into a corporate welfare system.


Ohhhh, buzzwords.
Congress makes the laws.
Copyright in the rest of the world is comparable to copyright in the U.S.
It boils down to ownership. Disney owns the right to the image their products convey.
The brothers Grimm made some grim fairy tales. Disney's version is far more family friendly.
Coincidentally, the techniques used by Disney are probably published. Any genuine benefit society would gain from their material is out there. They still use their properties, it's not as if the old movies and ideas have been abandoned. So I see no reason they shouldn't make money off them.

I mean, maybe I'm fine with it because I don't have an irrational hatred of large companies, and like money, but these aren't life-saving techniques. They were created to bring people joy and make money while doing so. That is their purpose.

These are vividly branded properties. You can probably recognize and name most of the Disney princesses instantly. They've put a lot of work into making themselves recognizable. Disney is loosely based on Grimms fairy tales, that's true. And other people can also base things on Grimm's fariy tales. However, Disney is more cheerful. So, What, you want to eliminate is the ability for a company which has invested decades of time and effort into maintaining their company's image to stave off imitators who want to use that cultivated image for their personal gain? Companies whose interest is literally the simple exploitation of your wallet? At least Disney has an interest in maintaining high customer satisfaction.

And then, the argument that copyrights stifle creativity.
i mean, it's not like people haven't been using ideas from copyrighted works like the Lord of the Rings for decades or anything. No, not a single person took the ideas of elves and dwarves and ents and used them in works of fiction. I mean, that still active copyright on LoR just completely quashed the ability for people to innovate.

Now, as fun as arguing any side of any argument on the internet is, even ones with a lazy sarcastic spin, I don't see much point in continuing this, so I'm not going to. You can have the last paragraphs if you feel like typing them up. But I've never seen an argument in favor of copyrights on this forum, so at least there's a paragraph or two now.

Also, just for giggles:
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/87320/when-will-copyright-restrictions-expire-on-the-lord-of-the-rings/87321
Now may be a good time to say that I am not a lawyer.
Posted 4/5/16

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


prh99 wrote:
It's life plus 70 in the U.S. Copyright is suppose to be for a limited time, that's the bargain creator gets a government backed monopoly and after that period expires other people get to distribute freely and make derivative works (the promotion of useful arts and science). Disney and others have profited immensely from the public domain, the work of the Grimm brothers especially. So when they keep extending copyright they are pulling the later up behind them and ensuring no one can do with Disney what Disney did with the work of the Grimm brothers.
They've turned copyright into a corporate welfare system.


Ohhhh, buzzwords.
Congress makes the laws.
Copyright in the rest of the world is comparable to copyright in the U.S.
It boils down to ownership. Disney owns the right to the image their products convey.
The brothers Grimm made some grim fairy tales. Disney's version is far more family friendly.
Coincidentally, the techniques used by Disney are probably published. Any genuine benefit society would gain from their material is out there. They still use their properties, it's not as if the old movies and ideas have been abandoned. So I see no reason they shouldn't make money off them.

I mean, maybe I'm fine with it because I don't have an irrational hatred of large companies, and like money, but these aren't life-saving techniques. They were created to bring people joy and make money while doing so. That is their purpose.

These are vividly branded properties. You can probably recognize and name most of the Disney princesses instantly. They've put a lot of work into making themselves recognizable. Disney is loosely based on Grimms fairy tales, that's true. And other people can also base things on Grimm's fariy tales. However, Disney is more cheerful. So, What, you want to eliminate is the ability for a company which has invested decades of time and effort into maintaining their company's image to stave off imitators who want to use that cultivated image for their personal gain? Companies whose interest is literally the simple exploitation of your wallet? At least Disney has an interest in maintaining high customer satisfaction.

And then, the argument that copyrights stifle creativity.
i mean, it's not like people haven't been using ideas from copyrighted works like the Lord of the Rings for decades or anything. No, not a single person took the ideas of elves and dwarves and ents and used them in works of fiction. I mean, that still active copyright on LoR just completely quashed the ability for people to innovate.

Now, as fun as arguing any side of any argument on the internet is, even ones with a lazy sarcastic spin, I don't see much point in continuing this, so I'm not going to. You can have the last paragraphs if you feel like typing them up. But I've never seen an argument in favor of copyrights on this forum, so at least there's a paragraph or two now.


Not the point at all.

7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/16 , edited 4/6/16

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


prh99 wrote:

It's not so much that Disney owns Mickey Mouse, it's that they manage to extend copyright each time his is about expire, which means we don't get a lot of other stuff that would have passed into the public domain. Trademark might prevent people creating new Mickey stuff, but those old movies could be distributed and archived freely.


The movies that were created by Disney?

It's their stuff. Why shouldn't they retain the right to direct the way their company's products are used?
Their products represent the company, so losing creative control of their copyrighted works would give leeway for people to employ their products in a way that misrepresents their company values. And their movies are vividly iconic, you can recognize the Disney princesses from 40 years ago instantly.

Besides, copyright lasts for the life of the creator + 50 years or something, so I'd guess they retain the copyright to those regardless.


The whole point of copyright law is that it was never meant to be indefinite. Legally, works of literature and art have always been intended to pass into the public domain after a period of time. Jules Vern, Mozart, Shakesphere, thousands of other great works all benefited in their time. When that time passed, other artistes and publishers were free to add to those ideas.
You must be logged in to post.