Copyright

oh boo hoo, princess. you wanna go "No one's creative, everyone copies everyone else"
don't do something better than someone else, do your own goddamned thing and stop being such a pussy about coming up with ideas

Stopped reading there.

Yeah, I can see why. Too many anons are kids who think personal insults = a real argument. Do they even teach debate in school anymore?

I'm curious to see more opinions in this thread, but I hope people put more time into their reasoning. I think OP's view of things is absurdly naive.

A creator deserves the fruits of his work. Just not in perpetuity. Copyright should last their lifetime. No more.

For art, liturature, and film, I think twenty-five years with the possiblility of another twenty-five year extension is more than fair enough.

The problem with that wording is that corporations live forever, and companies like Disney, Marvel, and DC claim ownership over properties created by their employees.

Fifty years should be roughly a lifetime since almost all creators are at least young adults, so I have no problem with that.

Only a fool would create new properties under their aegis. Still, corporate personhood needs to be abolished, no arguments there.

People who copy are craftsman, not artists. They're paid for labor, not their creativity.

Since the idea of copyright arose, we've had generations of artists produce original works and flourish, giving incentive for businessmen to invest in mass reproduction of said art, which made art more accessible to the general populace than ever before. That's kind of the point people like OP seem to miss about copyright. It induces artists to share their works rather than hide them away, to work for large audiences instead of the few rich elites who can afford commissions.

Think about everything that would be public domain by now if it was just set to the old 75 years. What is it currently, like 95 years? More?

I'd probably go with 50 and a possible extra 25 extension. That allows for career creators to keep focused on their work for a fair amount of their lives without worry. And with lifespans getting longer, 25 years isn't much to people these days.

To an extent, copyright can be beneficial. It encourages people to come up with their own original ideas (or presentations thereof) since they can't blatantly copy other succesful contemporary works, and rewards them by ensuring others can't profit off their idea, thus making them the sole profiteers.
Its current model is untenable, however. "Lifelong+75 years" is far too much, and their descendants/some company that once invested in it when their entire staff consisted of other people than today have no more right to the work's copyright than anyone else does. Likewise, copyright should only apply to a full copy of the work. Somebody posting a screenshot or a quote should not be liable to be sued by the rights holder.
Copyright law needs a major overhaul to become more relaxed, but as with many other things, the fault lies not so much in the concept as in the execution.

...

got your feelings hurt, pussies?

One question about the extention and the reasoning being to protect Mickey Mouse among others:

Wouldn't the copyright of early Mickey cartoons be just that? The cartoons and not specifically Mickey as a character fall into public domain? Keep in mind, some Mickey cartoons, like Bugs Bunny and others, are in public domain due to not refiling and all that (prior to the 1976 new copyright laws), so The Mad Doctor is PD while Steamboat Willie isn't.

Marvel and other big studios' movies are shit and forgettable because Hollywood is guaranteed to have fanbases that gravitate towards everything marvel, DC, etc. regardless of the quality of their movies. All they have to do is half ass it, sit back and watch the money come in without investing the tiniest bit of effort in to the story and characters (Iron Man 2, Antman, Every DC movie from 2013 onwards).

If you had a patent of computer mice and sued everyone for selling their own versions of yours, that's a monopoly on a singular entity the same and be said for remixing ideas.

Not true. When an IP becomes popular enough, the publishers and executives who own it gut everything that made it stand out by selling poorly made sequels or seasons no one wanted. We've seen this with Spongebob, nu-PPG, Ben 10, every popular video game franchise like Halo, Star Wars, Marvel and DC, (both their comics and movies). And Hollywood in general.

Would you rather watch Batman vs Superman or Superman vs the Elite? Despite the latter's subpar animation and lower budget, it has a comprehensible story, and three-dimensional characters, things the former lacked. If you had to choose between a sports car with a shit engine or a sedan with a good one, which would you buy?

There are some things that can only be done with an original IP. If there was a show set in complex hard fantasy universe with a unique set of rules and history, it would be very difficult to replicate all that. By abolishing IP, the consumer and fans' choice isn't determined by who's selling Marvel movies, it now becomes a matter of who sells the best Marvel movies. Think of all the music, movies, books, TV shows, and video games we've all come to know and love being recreated and reimagined by people who understand the source material and are passionate about the artistic works we cherish (mostly dedicated fans of the original). Instead of hacks chosen by Hollywood who could care less about making a good film.

They will as long as his work is good.
So just because the original creator is alive means everyone should be arrested for selling their own versions of his work? They're not making him lose money. People will support the original creator of a good work regardless of how many versions of said work there are.

Have you not seen what's been going on with the movie, tv, video game and music industries? The second part of what you said is already happening. The owner of a popular IP doesn't have to invest any effort into their works at all, because there's a sizeable group of fans who gravitate towards a cherished idea.

For those of you who say art and artists won't thrive without IP, watch this:

5-20 years of protection, then it's out in the wilderness for you. Enough to make a good profit, but not too much.

The problem is with applying the copyright in such a way that it both protects the little man AND is fair for everybody.
If we release all the copyrights, nothing is stopping big companies from stealing genius ideas of random not-yet-successful people and labeling them as their own.
Even if the truth about contest stealing comes out, it would be only after they already made their profit.

Dude, Harry Potter is almost 20 years old. 20 years is fucking NOTHING.

The video brings up some good points but anyone who pretends that copyright is a terrible thing is a faggot. It just needs to be changed.
I'd say change it so you can't copy anything for 10-15 years rather than the original 28. And if the creator dies, it's up for grabs.

But the most important thing that needs to be added is that copyright laws should not be applied to those who don't make money from what they do. You should be able to create any kind of fan work you want, even a whole game, even a whole movie, and not have to worry about copyright laws, as long as you're not getting money from it. If you want to make money off whatever you made, you need express permission and something like 15-30% of the profit should go to whoever the creator is.

Anyone who wants more than this is either a jew or an uncreative faggot. It prevents companies from stealing shit from creators to make a quick buck while simultaneously making sure creators can't get too greedy about their works, and it allows fans to do what they want without having to worry about take-down notices.

No matter what the limit is, corporations like Disney are going to lobby the government for longer copyright monopolies forever. Money talks, after all.

What does it matter if a creator's making money off their work based on someone else's idea? The original creator isn't losing money by the existence of other versions of his work. People financially support original creators to experience the original version of his work, not the versions with twists. And even if they buy into other versions, so what? The people who make shit versions of a work won't be financially supported because there are better versions of it to go around. Where as now, studios can get away with whatever shit they want. Just look at the de-facto remake, the Force Awakens and the Star Wars Prequels. They were made because Lucas is guaranteed that fans of Star Wars will buy into anything he produces. When you centralize something, it becomes less efficient and low quality.

By your logic, do I have to pay royalties to the apple pie inventor's estate whenever I sell an apple pie? You cannot own an idea nor can you steal one. They are abstract and intangible. The works an artist makes is his, the idea behind his works isn't. Art shouldn't get a special privilege, and should be treated like every other industry. This is capitalism 101: Competition of the same kind of product ensures a high standard of quality of products between competing businesses.

Here's what I should've featured in OP

We're talking in an ideal world, what corporations will lobby for doesn't matter.

Also, if you allow someone to make money off another's idea, that's something corporations will exploit. They already do this to an extent but get in trouble for it when called out- an artist will make a picture and a corporation will steal it and make a ton of money off it without even giving them credit. The artist IS losing out on money in this situation.
Also I think faggots like Team Four Star should burn for wanting to create an actual living off ruining a franchise on levels that Toei seems to be trying hard to outdo.

Also, the 'logic' you claim I have is faulty, namefag. Apple pies have been around since forever. It'd be more like, if you decided to make your own oreos and even call them oreos, and wanted to sell them to anyone who wanted them, you should at minimum get permission.
Or either don't make money off it or fuck off and name it something else and get creative, you fucking retard.

But then again, I don't have to tell you you're a retard, you probably knew that from the moment that you decided to be a namefag.

Content is not apple pies, my friend.
Products are not intangible. If i a create a comic book, the comic book is mine, it exists, sure, someone can make one similar but the characters i create were not created by anyone else, so it is mine to own.
We have those with copyright as well, we have plenty of comic books, plenty of movies, plenty of music, plenty of books

Oh boy

Copyright really doesn't work anything like the way it's supposed to nowadays.

It doesn't even protect franchises much; companies can just make thinly disguised knockoffs that if done well can pretty much supplant the original.

Corporations are already exploiting artists and their work by making soulless cash cow franchises of them. Just look at the Transformers movies. Unless the corporation produces good content out of someone's idea, their work will FAIL if it's shit and there's better versions of it. People will know whether what there watching is a reboot, either from the rebooted work itself, or by doing their own research.

Did you not read my fucking argument?
The purpose of my analogy is to show the implications of IP rights if they were applied to other industries. I used the apple pie inventor's estate as a comparison to a corporation who owns the rights to an artist's work long after his death. We are referring to an imaginary world after all.

And lastly, you know how cartoons, movies, and pretty much every other creative industry has been producing lackluster works that somehow sell well? Because the corporations who own the rights to popular ideas have no incentive to invest any kind of effort because there's a sizeable audience who will eat up whatever shit that's brandished with their favourite work's name so long as the means of creation stay centralized. You have yet to respond to me on this point and it's very telling of who the real retard is here.

the real retard is probably the one who double posts 5 minutes apart. at least you dropped the name.

Now that's quite a loaded term.

It's someone's invention, which gives the creator and it's estate special privileges over it.
The characters themselves are ideas. If I'm the first artist of a stickman, and I draw one on a piece of paper, I own the drawing but not the idea of the stickman.
Look at the examples I've given you.

...

You guys from /liberty/ as well?

No, but might as well be. The term "creator's rights" seems kind of backwards for a legal concept that is intended to grant a monopoly on an idea, in a very literal sense. You could argue that it incentivizes its production, sure, but calling it a "right" is like calling a particular tax break a "right".

that's not how copyright works

copyright not only protects a work, but the contents of said work. it's why people don't need to do individual copyrights for the Joker or Penguin when DC copyrighted Batman

as long as the first work a character appeared in is still under copyright, the character is still protected by it

gee, I wonder why? maybe it's because it's their version of YOURS while they didn't make their own design

what you're talking about here are bootlegs, which are always illegal under copyright. if it's a different model, you can't claim copyright because it's not the same as the one you did

here's an idea, if you don't like the current marvel movies, find better movies
but why should anyone be able to own anything they created or legally bought? sure, be a communist and force everything into public domain. see how well creativity is then when you have 8000 batman movies coming out a week, all shit

good. being a fanboy is a waist of time and it's better to find new things than to be an old fag and gravitate towards old things

it's worse. if you release copyrights, nothing's stopping big companies from just publishing your work without your permission. you won't be able to get any money from the sales, they'll bastardize your works as much as they want, and you'll be left penniless

why can't I leave my work for my family? or sell it?
so basically make torrenting and streaming movies legal? fuck no. if i go to the effort of making a movie, I want you to buy it

yea you can, that's how people make new inventions all the time. and if you can own it, you can steal it
that's why you gotta put it on paper to copyright it, then it's completely tangible
you're not making the same KIND of product, you're making the SAME product. it's like saying "I'm gonna compete with Tesla by making Teslas," it's retarded

That's only if you assume business models remain static over time. Considering that the cartoon industry retrofits itself to changes in copyright law all the time, that's already false. In a world without copyright, why would people even attempt to sell art in the same way it is now? Why wouldn't they try funding during the production stage (like through kickstarter or patreon), instead of trying to sell individual copies?

With or without copyright though, that seems to be the direction art production in general is headed in.

I may have misworded my statement, the second-hand creators of computer mice would make their own versions.

If I really like burgers, and the only one with a monopoly on burgers produces subpar burgers, I should just go for tacos instead?
Not if they want to sell their movies well. If everyone wanted to make batman movies, they'd have to put their all into it. And your guaranteed to have a wide variety of batman movies with different interpretations and twists that a centralized proprietor would fail at providing. *cough* Killing Joke *cough*

I have to agree here user. It's been bothering me more and more how I see people talking about creative works and ideas as if they were things to be used, giving the creations themselves no respect. I one day wish to create things of my own but increasingly I fear doing so, because of how sticky and convoluted copyright has become and how cold the perception of these things has become with the term "IP". My ideas, these characters, places, and stories, I view them almost as my children and I hold them more dear to my heart than my own life.

I guess that means anyone can sue you for using their likeness in your work. Since we attribute our ideas to groups and movements throughout history, we all have to pay their individual estates for penalties.
Marx wrote the foundation of socialism in the Communist Manifesto, does that mean he owns the idea of socialism?
What I'm proposing would be like saying "I'm gonna compete with Tesla by making my own brand of electric cars based on Teslas." By the same token, Artists would be making their own versions of an artistic work, with their own characters, interpretations etc.

and that would not violate copyright
you can't copyright something so broad. it's like saying you can copyright books in general
a medium is not copyrightable

this ain't the cartoon industry, it's just disney
because you can just take someone else's work, put no effort into it, call it your own, and they can't do shit because they didn't copyright anything
because not everyone is a heartless jew who goes "gee, I want money. I'll ask my audience for it, not like I already owe the entirety of my fame to them, I want their shekles too"
that's because many of these companies are so big and many of these artists are so small. you get someone small who wants to keep their copyright, you're going to see more kickstarters, patreon, and art in general getting ass-blasted by DMCAs

yes, actually. they can
yeah, more or less. he also owns the batshit idea of "No one can own anything"
no, that's not the same thing. basing it on tesla, but making it different is the Marvel vs DC debate

this character isn't Superman, it's Hyperion. this one isn't Captain Marvel, it's Captain Mar-Vell. no, he's not the flash. he's quicksilver

you're more than free to make your own version of any character because at the heart of it any character has a few traits that are identifiable and unable to be copyrighted. that's why a detective whose parents were killed in a mugging is free game, but a superhero called Batman isn't

technically socialism existed before Marx.

In the hypothetical we are discussing, the production would have already been paid for. Why would that matter?

How is kickstarter-style funding more greedy than regular selling-individual-copies funding?

that doesn't matter. without copyright, what I said will happen
congrats, all their work and all your work are for naught because nothing's stopping theaters and websites from just streaming this shit without paying you back. good luck breaking even on the entire cost of production
because kickstarter funding actually requires you to ask your audience to donate more often then not, and it's for something that may not even happen Pop Quiz Hotshot and people get shit rewards regarding the product a lot of the time AVGN Movie

you want the money to produce something of value? be an adult about it. raise it through ads, through labor, or get a loan from someone that you agree to pay back. don't just be a fucking "Hey guys, can you give me your shekles because you like me," kinda douchebag

Feel free to kill yourself

Any one of you turn of the century Russian peasant cosplayers bringing up that bloviating faggot Marx and his failure of a socioeconomic system in earnest can follow suit as well; go back to your hugbox board where you have to ban people for blowing you the fuck out over and over again you losers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of intellectual property or protectionism as such, there are perfectly valid arguments about how it should be handled.

These "half-assed" comics, cartoons and movies often cost millions of dollars and teams of dozens or even hundreds of otherwise unemployed artists and writers to produce. I'm sure, for example, Marvel would love to be able to swoop in and flood the market with DC reprints, DVDs et cetera and vice versa with DC, but thankfully they aren't, and all of the money they spend and earn on a production goes to grow their own brand as it should, not someone else's, and not yours.

If you're not even referring to the hypothetical, then you really haven't answered the question

If people were told tomorrow, "Sorry guys, no more copyright enforcement", it would be insanity for a company like Disney to maintain their same business model.

Honestly, the whole anti-copyright argument is flawed because it seems too reliant on the whole "innovation" spiel and the assumption that creatives would come out on top of the free-for-all that would ensue with no copyright.

Why would you even post your email in the first place?

it would be more or less the death of professional art in general
you wanna produce something? it takes time and money, but not everyone has the time to actually make it. people pay you to make it, but without copyright they can just steal it and put it up there without having to pay you, so goodbye to all earnings you can make as an artist

that's the problem, there isn't innovation. you're more or less just doing whatever take you want on the same thing instead of innovating a completely different concept

Well, yeah…if they were to keep their same business model of selling individual copies. They would almost certainly move to some sort of crowd-funded model. Is there less money in that in total? Most likely yes.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

Reminder that libertarians are open borders "free trade" utopians who want to import hundreds of thousands of working class foreigners into your communities even as unemployment rates increase to historic levels

Libertarian Party (U.S.)
lp.org/platform#3.4

Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Libertarian Party (Canada)
libertarian.ca/

Immigration is an essential aspect of a growing and prosperous country. As such, the Libertarian Party of Canada advocates for a welcoming immigration policy.

Liberal Democratic Party (Australian Libertarian Party Equivalent)
ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1156-immigration

The Liberal Democratic Party believes the free movement of people, within and between countries, generally contributes to greater prosperity. It believes immigrants contribute a net social and economic benefit to Australia and advocates expanding opportunities to live, study and work in Australia…

Libertarian Party (UK)
libertarianpartyuk.com/

The core tenet is that there should be free movement of peoples.

we will establish bilateral agreements with countries to enable free flows of people.

we are committed to pursuing an open borders policy towards those who would wish to come to the United Kingdom in order to contribute to our economy and peaceful shores.

Libertarian Party (New Zealand)
libertarianz.org.nz/

Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor. We will run a completely open immigration policy subject only to a requirement that immigrants waive any claim to remaining elements of the welfare state and confirm their peaceful intentions on entry.

Free Immigrants, Free Capital, Free Markets

mises.org/library/free-immigrants-free-capital-free-markets

Libertarian Videos on Immigration:

Borders are Just Another Government Scam

youtube.com/watch?v=kszdc0vqIng

Libertarian Viewpoints on Immigration, Gay Marriage, and Abortion

youtube.com/watch?v=zA4XyRcqIpc

"Let Them All In?" How Immigration Can Help the Economy - Learn Liberty

youtube.com/watch?v=NcZfGwt0kZQ

Immigration Myths Debunked - Learn Liberty

youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM
Related Articles and Videos:

Companies Lay off Thousands, Then Demand Immigration Reform for New Labor
washingtonexaminer.com/companies-lay-off-thousands-then-demand-immigration-reform-for-new-labor/article/2535595

Immigration Gumballs
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Immigration By the Numbers: Off the Charts
youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ

It's predicated on the assumption that everyone is as discerning and careful in their consumption of media as the person making the argument.

You can always tell that these faggots aren't for "liberty" the moment you bring up possibly just only having copyright apply to stuff you're profiting from. The moment you take the ability to make money off someone's work out of the equation, suddenly they're crying and whining that it's unfair.

They're just a bunch of uncreative, greedy pieces of shit that are pretending like they're fighting the jews when in reality, they are the jews.

aaronsw.com/weblog/000829

Wrong board, user. Try Holla Forums I'm sure they'll love you there.

They make a lot of money because people willingly pay to see them. What does this have to do with you wanting to ride on their success?

I thought we were talking about copyrights, not patents. In any case, patents also encourage people to share their technology. Those run out in 25 years.

Make a successful original IP and you can do the same yourself.

Abolishing IP just means that big studios can bury every small creator. The moment you release something, the big company will monetize it, and block you out of every media channel they own.

In all honestly, I think torrenting/streaming should at least be a legally gray area. It's stupid to actually prosecute people for it. The fact it happens is just something that corporations should deal with. Rather than trying to put people in jail for it, they should combat pirating by making ways to watch much easier. You ever try legally streaming something? It's hell nowadays.
Nothing good is on Netflix, nothing good is on Hulu. You go to the actual sites to watch this shit, like HBO's streaming site or Nickelodeon's or whatever, it runs like hell. It's literally easier to go to a site that's full of obnoxious ads and might have viruses (assuming many idiots don't know what shit like adblock is), and just watch it there.

These people just need to deal with a changing environment. No one wants to go to the movies anymore, and no one wants to have to tune into their favorite show at a special time anymore. They want to watch it whenever they want to, wherever they want to.
Corporations need to be forced to deal with that.

This whole discussion is Holla Forums. It has nothing to do with the quality of what Marvel, DC, or CN is doing, which is "the best they can", for better or worse. This whole thread is the musing of some butthurt idea guy that thinks he should be able to monetize his fan fiction.

So? Create a better IP yourself. Should be easy, right?

You can even release it under creative commons license or public domain. That option is already available to you.

Your view is constrained by the circumstances we have now. If IP were abolished, how is crowding someone out of the distribution channels for a digital piece of data even possible? Why could people only the data from specific media channels? It seems to me they would just be able to pull the piece from any sort of file-hosting site.

They are the sole proprietor of a popular idea. Of course people are going to pay you for a good or service if you have a monopoly on it regardless of the quality. So their "success" only exists because they have no competitors to challenge them. Marvel is as successful as someone who has a monopoly on PCs but makes shitty PCs.

What about the artistic quality of the work? People like works that are well written. As stated before, the reason the big studios are so successful is because they have monopolies over popular ideas.

They'd just be giving the viewers more attention to the creator's work and indirectly encourage them to support it. And even if they tried to obfuscate any trace of the original creator's name. It would be exposed in the media and people would stop supporting the corporation.

They own everything, user. They're big publishers of just about everything, so if you make something and they want to make money off it instead, you're not going to be able to get your stuff published. They'll block you out. That's what they were saying.
The only way they'd be able to get their shit out is on the internet, and the person would have a much smaller audience.
You don't see anything wrong with allowing corporations to become even bigger and nastier?

You really live in a fantasy world, don't you?

ooh, so cool, dumbass

by this kind of logic, I should be able to have sex with your wife. I can do it better, she'll like it, ergo you should love being cucked

no, i don't accept that. if i see shit i made on someone else's site without permission, I'm bringing that site down

it's because so many people do it that people have given up on fighting torrenting and streaming. I say fuck all those lazy niggers

No, you're just naive at how much money is required to really compete, copyrights or not. No copyright just makes it harder for everyone not a mega-conglomerate, because no one would be able to get funding to make something competitive. IP is collateral. Without IP, you can't convince anyone to invest in you.

Who is your internet service provider right now? Comcast maybe?

No, they are the proprietors of a specific creative expression of an idea, not generic ideas. You can make a superhero film if you want,as long as you don't actually use the term superhero.

What about getting rid of copyrights would increase quality of work?

No, because individual creators don't have the marketing to truly compete, barring statistical outliers.

Who do you think owns the media? What do you think media runs on?

Your frustrations with current copyright laws is sincere, I get it. But guess what, big companies will always screw you no matter what the laws are, all of this shit takes big money to run, money you can't get unless you have real collateral in the form of intellectual property. Copyright is the last sliver of protection individual creators have.

as a fellow libertarian wouldn't reform work better?

In a free market, corporations would lose power and be on an even playing field as start ups and other lesser companies. They would all have to compete against each other by providing value through goods and services. Does this seem fair?

Creative Industries would be no different. We all know Steven Universe is shit, right? In a free market, someone would come along and create a new and improved version of it with depth, better characters, better animation etc. The creation of his version would be funded either by online networks like Netflix or crowdfunded. And it would have its own audience. Most fans of the original wouldn't stop supporting the original because a new interpretation of it exists. In fact, most of them would be fans of both. And when the networks are only left with reboots, they're going to want to invest in the creation of original works by giving original creators higher budgets and maximum creative freedom to let them tell the story they want to tell and ensure high quality, thus providing selling points to stand out from the rest.

Corporations would continue to lobby the government to extend copyright. As long as the seed is still there, it'll grow. The only way is to dispel the myth that artistic works need special privileges. I suggest watching this video:

You can already do this with The Snow Queen. Disney made 1 billion off of their adaptation of it. Why don't you give it a try instead of squabbling over stories created in only the last hundred years.

Nice B8, Mate.

You are fucking stupid, and there's historical precedent to prove it

He's 100% right though.

Once again, nice B8, Mate.

Not an argument.

wew boomers

Hey moron, stop straw manning and look at his argument.

Go back to Holla Forums.

what about open source then? Wouldn't that be a better alternative to copyright?

Usually those corporations were given power from the government that and a corporation in it of itself is a legal fiction.

There are are about 2000 years of written stories, and thousands more from oral tradition, that you can build your creativity off of, all copyright free. You are arguing for the tiny, most recent gap of material created in the last 100 years. Why? Don't you think there might be a coincidence between the amount of work created and preserved in that time period, the value they generated economically and artistically, with the advent of copyright laws?

Finally, someone who knows what we're dealing with.

I've already mentioned releasing works under creative commons license or directly into public domain. That has always been an option, but you have to choose it for yourself. You should not be choosing for others.

What about copyleft, according to its page, it seems like a good alternative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

...

No it didn't you illiterate doofus. You think that teams of cucked NEETs and their idea guy taskmaster or even low budget legitimate studios could even come close to the quality of the WORST products Disney, Marvel, DC etc. put out? You're kidding yourself. Copyright exists so that losers can't piggyback on winners by exploiting the popularity of their IP that was earned only at great personal expense. It exists so that Sony can't sell Nintendo products and Nintendo can't sell Sony products. Legal exclusivity exists for a good reason, and if you had a creative bone in your body you'd know that it's a good thing.

This is an oft-repeated libertarian meme with no basis in reality. They're given power by the market, by providing either the highest quality or otherwise trendiest products which are created at great cost to themselves in research, manufacturing and advertising.

This is an oft-repeated libertarian meme with no basis in reality. They're given power by the market, by providing either the highest quality or otherwise trendiest products which are created at great cost to themselves in research, manufacturing and advertising.
Really so subsidies from the government, tariffs that favor these corporations or lobbyists who help these corporations don't give the corporation power?
Corporations are ingrained into law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

shit i forgot to greentext your response.

sounds like a good idea user.

Are you so butthurt about people calling you stupid that they're even forgetting to greentext?
Anyway, you really are stupid. Even if corporations do have the government wrapped around their pinky finger, getting rid of copyright laws will not make it better. It will do the exact fucking opposite. Why the hell do you think they have to keep finding loopholes in it and want to keep changing it in ways they refuse to tell the public about?
The only thing preventing the big corporations from gobbling up and spitting out the small IP creators is copyright- the thing that actually gets them in trouble for stealing things that aren't theirs.

The only people that actually want to abolish copyright laws altogether are faggots. Faggot Marxists, faggot Jews, and just actual faggots that want to monetize their shitty fanfiction.

I forgot to greentext because I typed too fast, not because I was butthurt. You sound kind of pissed user are you alright?

Just because you dropped the namefagging doesn't mean we can't still tell it's your butthurt ass, user.
Why don't you just go back to /liberty/? You got your question about what Holla Forums thinks of copyright.

That wasn't me user. That was another libertarian. I just joined in for the fun of it.

I wouldn't step foot in that cuck shed if you paid me. I'm closer to a libertarian than I am a marxist.

I believe in capitalism, but I also know that there is nothing wrong with protectionist or nationalist caveats to the market. Tariffs on goods originating from slave labor nations for example practically funded our government single handedly for 100 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#Tariff revenues

With the exception of the actual bailouts that had occurred in what, 2011? These things are pretty immaterial to a corporation's success or failure.

You know that proportional subsidies for small businesses exist too, right?

Wrong, it sounds stupid as shit.

And using a movie whose source material wouldn't have been in the public domain if modern copyright durations applied is giving me irony poisoning.

wouldn't you argue that those subsidies to that big corporation hinder competition though?

I don't know a ton about the subject to be honest, I'm against subsidies in general (I think they're a means of increasing international competitiveness moreso than anything), but even if you simply gave a large company like that a tax break (an arrangement I find more palatable in either case), you'd be effectively giving them tens of millions of dollars, too. I don't think it effects a startup one way or another though. They do perfectly well failing on their own.

Barely

I already made it clear that while I was in favor of IP, discussion of how it's handled and criticism thereof is perfectly valid (I don't personally believe they should extend any farther than the life of the author, and maybe not even that long-it was originally less than 20 years IIRC). I'm in favor of taking a closer look at what would be the most equitable copyright/IP laws while not throwing the baby out with the bath water like a mental patient.

My point in using Alice in Wonderland is to challenge OP's assertion that removing copyright will somehow automatically leave consumers with better product due to "competition". The biggest and the best companies will still make the biggest and best products.

fair enough. For the time being I guess reform would be good.

Yeah I agree. Sorry I was being kind of a flippant dick.

Its ok man we can get carried away. Sorry I was being a dick too.

Eh I started it. No hard feelings m8.

are you gonna fuck or what
just kidding, glad to see some civility

agreed man, no hard feelings.

Pretty much everything from the Golden Age, to begin with.

you guys seriously wanna see disney stop reforming copyright every time they're about to run out? boycott them. it's as simple as that
no more star wars, no more disney shows, no more disney movies, no disney land, no kingdom hearts, none of it

if all of their projects flop because a group of people are driving others away from them they'll either run out of money or kowtow

I'm not sure where you got this strawman from, but reboot creators would be backed by networks or crowdfunding, so there'd be no problem with the budget.
False, copyright came into existence to protect publishers from people copying their work. Copyright is essentially a relic from the time of the printing press. If everyone made a reboot of something, each work would be independently reviewed, and the best and most interesting ones would get the most revenue and attention. Are you telling me that vastly different interpretations of let's say Batman isn't creative? By your logic, the directors of the Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Captain America Civil War are losers because they're piggybacking on Marvel's popularity.

So Hollywood churning out countless shitty superhero movies, and Triple A gaming companies making poorly made sequels every year is a good thing? It's actually encouraging uncreative losers to pump out shit sequel after shit sequel by relying on name recognition without investing any amount of creativity in their work. Like I said, Marvel can just half ass their movie making process, sit back and watch the fanboys buy into their bullshit because Marvel has a monopoly. If you studied how the industry works, you'd know these are bad things.

To be fair with video games, I wouldn't blame copyright so much as a lack of creativity and casualization.

What better way to boycott them than to make better use of their stories? We could have competing studios creating movies with their own interpretation. Just take a look at the Macbeth movies for reference. One of them portrays Macbeth as a noble hero who becomes more evil as the story goes on and the other portrays him as a man who feels regretful of his actions, but has to go through with his wife's plan. Don't those two versions sound interesting?

Copyright and intellectual property in general is bullshit. It's nothing more than artificial scarcity imposed upon something which can be infinitely duplicated at zero cost.

To all those who say that copyright is necessary to support the arts, I refer you to the thousands of years of human history prior to copying being made illegal. The only thing necessary to support the arts is for people to have free time and a few basic resources - things we should already have in abundance given the prosperity of our civilization.

Personally I have a much lower opinion of people who pay money to scum like Disney than I have of even the most selfish torrent leechers.

Casuzlization and lack of creativity stem from having a monopoly and being assured that your brand is popular enough to sell on name recognition alone.

huh, didn't know that. Do you think the video game industry will crash? I see some people getting sick of the stuff they pump out.

It's possible. With every shit major release, I see more and more people leaving Triple-A gaming as a whole. The Gaming industry won't die quickly like it did in the 80s, instead, it'll slowly fade away.

Do you think the video game is already dying as Razorfist would say?

The fanbases of Triple-A gaming are slowly being chipped away as we type. However, as long as there are loyal fanboys to popular franchises, the gaming industry isn't dying any time soon.

Problem with IP laws is that they are stupid, way too wide and can't apply the same to every part of the work, nor the same for all kind of works.

An artist should have commercial rights (you and only you -or whoever you choose to sell it for you- are allowed to sell this thing), protection rights (you have a right to stop illegal distribution of this thing) and conceptual rights (you are allowed to make people drop their knockoffs). Commercial rights should last the most, between 50 and 75 years, but the rest should be much more short lived. I think conceptual rights should be the most ephemeral to avoid retarded long term Ken Penders situations (5 years or so), whereas protection rights should last a bit more, but not that much (10 or 15 years). After that, everybody should be free to distribute a free of cost copy of your work, which is ideal for letting you make profit of your stuff while at the same time opening a possibility to let people who may not be able to pay for the printed editions learn from your work.

Fuck engineering patents, though. Those are stupid and have no right to last this long.

People will support the original creator's work regardless of what other people do with it. After, all it's his work they're looking for, not anyone else's?

You mean back when the great GREAT majority of people were illiterate and/or lived in mud huts? Exclusivity is a product of modern western prosperity of the last couple hundred years and the industrial revolution. The kind of environment that allows a creative industry to exist to begin with.

The only people that believe this sort of idealistic nonsense are those who have never and will never create anything of value themselves. People who have no idea of what goes into even making a single drawing let alone an animated film (youtube.com/watch?v=5Q19QNBkh0Y). There has to be a pretty thick piss-bottle miasma disconnecting one from the real world to think that something like Frozen, a production that cost $150 million dollars and a team of over 600 people to produce, could be done in "spare time".

Sorry, just because you don't like Disney or anyone else doesn't mean you can legally copy their stuff or pass it off as your own out in the open, neither you, nor one of their competitors whom are a genuine threat. That kind of behavior is rightly relegated to the fringes of the internet where it isn't able to easily manifest in its logical conclusion, that being the death of the creative industry and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

If people want to make something for free like Stallman they have the right, if people want to sell something intangible they created like a story or character they are entitled to that and the basic protection that comes along with that as well.

I agree that copyright has gotten too bloated over the years and has vulnerabilities, but the fact that it's the people who evade any and all copyright anyway and whom have effectively opted out of the economy for the most part are the ones most set on telling the rest of us what we should and shouldn't be able to do with our creative work is absolutely laughable.

Watch this and come back to me.

There's nothing this open borders anarchist (
youtube.com/watch?v=kszdc0vqIng) is going to say that I haven't heard before, and that hasn't likely been repeated and discussed in this very thread.

Nice buzzwords, Adam.

Anyway, this is something I just can't agree on, despite my own personal libertarian-esque convictions. IP as-is is a very imperfect, but perfectly legitimate concept. I like the idea that I can't get legally cucked out of profiting from the fruits of my labor, my research or my creativity by an organization greater than myself or in competition with me. Thanks to digital distribution it's going to happen one way or the other, but it ought to be forced into the shadows and done clandestinely if at all-for a time (not for my life plus 70 years, good god). Again, there are a lot of things about IP law that I don't like at all, the duration being one of them, but I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

I watch something like this though and I understand why animus against IP laws exist in general.

First of all, there is a strong argument to be made that Frozen and other big budget feature films are a complete waste of money. Entertainment and art is valuable, but you can get far more enjoyment out of a good book which only requires a single person and practically no resources to produce.

Additionally, there's no reason that people couldn't make something like Frozen in their free time. Almost everyone who worked on it would be working 8-10 hour days. You already have more free time than that in a normal job. In fact, time isn't even the problem. The problem is that any reasonable person recognizes that spending hundreds of man-years to produce 2 hours of entertainment isn't a productive use of human labor.

Finally, within a hundred years it will be possible to create something like Frozen as a 1-man hobby project over a few weeks on a laptop.

Nobody is trying to place any restrictions upon what you do with your own creations. It is laughable that you attempt such a blatant distortion of the truth, trying to claim that we're somehow infringing on your right to restrict our rights. You can do whatever the fuck you want with your movies. Burn them to a billion DVDs, add shitty Comic Sans subtitles, try and sell them for $200 per disk, whatever. Just stop trying to tell other people what they're allowed to do with data on their own hard drives.

fuck off kike, go back to your containment board

Is this a joke?

What's a waste of money is up to content creators to decide. Not you.

Yeah, they'll just assemble their team of dozens of volunteer voice actors, volunteer art directors, volunteer character artists, volunteer storyboard artists, volunteer writers, volunteer editors, volunteer sound technicians, volunteer music composers, and hundreds of others, many struggling to pay off obscene debts they got into learning to ply their trade, all with rent to pay, and other unavoidable expenses intrinsic to life, to make a movie they won't be able to profit off of because mainstream websites, media outlets, and competing studios are streaming the movie for free on their websites immediately after release with no fear of consequences in this Intellectual Property-free socialist utopia of yours.

Yeah, how audacious that an artistically minded person would rather have the opportunity to secure an income as an artist working for a world renowned studio and put on a production than work in your communist salt mine and lock themselves in their room during the rest of their free time to finish the most recent Egoraptor-tier masterpiece they'll be able to spew out.

What you assume creative people will be able to do by the time we're long dead is definitely irrelevant to our current discussion. Thankfully though, this hypothetical person will assuredly be granted full legal protection of his intellectual property in whatever form it takes, regardless of the expedience with which he creates it, just as both his recent ancestors and our recent ancestors in turn were.

By normalizing piracy or IP infringement of the sort OP is proposing you're definitely placing practical restrictions on content creators. Stop acting like you're oppressed because you have to go on a website with shitty porn links to download the DCAU movies you crybaby fuck.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Paley

Too bad for the thousands of artists working for Marvel, DC, Disney, Warner brothers etc. who could never possibly have all of their living expenses paid through a taxpayer funded non-proift organization. Maybe if there were more communal hovels for artists they could all survive by making crude strawman comics about how profit is evil, and how people being able to freely distribute content they had no part in creating is just competition. Stupid socialist cunt retard.

you illiterate nigger

>wants everyone to share their intellectual property with society due to utopian delusions about what's best for the hundreds of thousands of actual gainfully employed artists, who will never have the opportunity or desire to live in a commie cuck shed like she does

This is what makes me laugh about Libertarians who try and co-opt the success of the United States as being some sort of Libertarian experiment. From the beginning we had "problematic" protectionist trade policies that helped stimulate domestic production, limit our domestic tax burden and level the playing field with more established industry overseas…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#Tariff_revenues

…and from the beginning we had protectionist exclusivity laws so that some uncreative fagtard couldn't swoop in and enrich themselves distributing copies of something that was the product of someone else's hard work, creativity, and investment of money and time.

We were never a truly free market in that context, just a freer one, and while I too believe that less government intervention is more in a myriad issues, even the people arguing FOR the removal of this kind of intervention are conceding that it would basically destroy the industry as we know it, imperiling tens of thousands of jobs that would in all likelihood never be recovered, and lower the already sadly diminished production values of today's media to something more akin to the volunteer artists of early 2000 Newgrounds.

Refer to this:

And this:

=SHUT THE FUCK UP EVERYBODY I HAVE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION==

SO IMPORTANT THAT I FORGOT HOW REDTEXT

SO IMPORTANT YOU ARE STILL TYPING IT AFTER 20 MINUTES

sounds great to me

(for the record, when I said stupid socialist cunt bitch, I was talking about Nina Paley and her welfare comic, not any of you fams)

NO U

Refer to this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

and realize that by your own admission that due to lobbying copyright is here to stay-and that's okay, for the most part.

In response to the video:

bruh…

I agree that copyright can be ridiculous and overbearing, and that many things that are protected today perhaps shouldn't be, but abolishing it entirely isn't the way either, and I just don't think you can convince me otherwise.

Whether they're hacks or not is not for you to decide, but for the market. If you don't like it, make your own show with your own characters. Should be easy right? Just do it in your spare time.

I think IP rights are bullshit and that the industries involved are built on a foundation of sand.
It literally cannot be sustainable to monopolize ideas or data without abusive government intervention and control.
Comics, cartoons, and games should die as industries and checks should be in place to ensure nothing of this likeness ever happens again.
These things will still be around, and they will still be good, probably even better, though there will be less truckloads of shit pouring out and less uninformed corporate experiments to waste money on, also the mass unemployment thanks to the now unnecessary massive marketing departments.

While I don't agree with all of his arguments these massive companies contractually own and steal their own peoples creative works all of the time, not to mention most companies working on or "rebooting" series had nothing to do with the creative process and are simply buying and selling ownership of popular works that were created by people who may have gotten screwed over, or may not even be alive.

There have been attempts, successful and otherwise, to shut down fan works in virtually every part of the entertainment industry.
Piggybacking being bad is like, your opinion man, but the only arguments you can support it with are either that it sets a bad precedent in our current faulty economic structure of these industries, or you're personally offended by the idea because you are a super autist.

But faggot-kun, I though whether something was a waste of money was for the content creators to decide. Do you ever have trouble keeping up with your constantly shifting positions?

My position hasn't changed at all. Follow the conversation or stop figuratively flapping your gums.

You can call them hacks all you want, but until the networks start losing money because the general public doesn't find their work appealing, they will continue to be employed by the network. YOU or at least the POST YOU'RE REFERRING TO is the one that said that employing them to begin with, and putting on productions that otherwise wouldn't be possible with a smaller team or with individual volunteers (i.e. Newgrounds), was a waste of money because anything more extravagant than an 80 page Goosebumps light novel is too bourgeoisie, comrade, not me.

Can I? Oh boy, guess that invisible hand loosened up and decided to let people make up their own minds after all

The composer's company was compensated whenever they performed for a premium.
Where the music is preformed is irrelevant, the video states that people used the original creator's music, and yet he and his company were compensated from premiums and being associated with the creation of the music,
That's called a thought experiment, you imbecile.
Got to love that poisoning the well fallacy. I have no respect for jews either, but try to actually argue for once in your life instead of resorting to mental gymnastics.

Are you so historically illiterate you think copyright was caused that rise in literacy?

I was thinking about this not too long ago.

I think after 100 years has past after an IP has been created, it should become public domain.

What does everyone here think of that?

Hundred years means that minor works are likely to be completely forget about. Why not just go back to the original 14 years plus extension if the author is still alive?

Not an argument (not that your previous misfire was, but you know)

That's all well and good, but that doesn't change the fact that through this video we're being given an incomplete picture of the situation, and without the very important context of 200 years of technological advancement, including universal literacy, ubiquitous electronic devices etc.

When using it as part of an appeal to promote a certain way of thinking, such as that which would lead to the complete abolition of a several hundred year old institution with no room for compromise, it becomes little more than crude hyperbole.

Bringing up Kokesh's (partial?) ethnicity was just an off-color joke, however I think I've pleaded my case just fine in the other dozens of lines I've written in this thread. These videos have failed to sway my opinion on this subject mainly because I don't feel oppressed by the very concept of Intellectual Property as these videos creators would clearly like me to, even if I don't agree with how it's handled either.

No I don't, and that's why I didn't say anything of the sort.

That's still quite a bit too long in my opinion, but it'd be better than the current system.

Watch this video, skip to 1:58, and ask yourself if the problems it talks about would still exist if Triple-A game publishers didn't have so much power to fuck over creators and consumers due to Intellectual Property.

off yourself

This thread has gone as far as it'll ever go if the discussion isn't going to go beyond constant bickering with OP.

And personally, I just don't think the open source/copyleft models have little, if any, practical potential outside of the tech sector and the odd vanity project. That "open-source" webcomic by David Revoy, Pepper and Carrot, comes to mind.

Poisoning the well won't get you far in life, friend. See if this cuck's arguments hold up to your standard of logic.

"open source webcomic?" Sounds interesting, do tell.

The problem is stuff like cartoons are different from an opera. Most of an opera's expenses go into the performance each time, while a cartoon needs to be written, storyboarded, drawn, colored, voiced, etc. and the result is able to be replayed from a storage medium without investing the same amount of money in each instance of playing it.

Let's say an animation studio makes a cartoon staring a guy called Riot Man who abuses the welfare system and spends his time going to conflicts like BLM protests over police brutality and turns them into complete fucking warzones with the help of homemade firebombs and a machine gun. He fights and then flees an ultra-formulaic cape after they realize he's the antagonist in the riots, to come home and laugh at the news. As the show goes on, his bullshit gradually wears the cape(s) down until there's a full-blown "tyrannical cape(s) that's willing to kill" plot arc, where Riot Man saves the day, killing the capes and sacrificing himself. The series ends with the people pissing on Riot Man's grave because he's an asshole, and they all cry over losing the cape(s) because most of society love being sheep.

They spend a shitload of time and money writing and animating this show, and it's ready. How do they get paid if they're not selling the rights to air their cartoon, or if they're making the cartoon for the network, how do they keep someone else from just recording the show as it airs and just replays it?

The costs of making music and animation is irrelevant, as well as the way each are stored. In both instances, the works were used freely, and despite that, the creators still got compensated.

You know how Netflix releases every episode of a season of their shows on the same day? Well, the creators are compensated from varied monthly subscriptions. If a network tried to replay a show, they'd be promoting it and encouraging people to do their own research. And if they erased every trace of the original creator's names, they would be exposed in the media and by the original creators through social media. There's also a growing sub-culture of supporting the original creator by paying to watch their content through official means. Just look up the story of Tolkien and his piracy problem with Ace Books when they released a pirated edition of Lord of The Rings in the United States. Tolkien started a campaign to support his official copies. And even though the Ace copies were cheaper, Tolkien's approved copies outsold the former.

If the network replayed the show, then that's it. There's no legal obligation to pay the original creators of the show. Viewers may do it, but that's it. There's no legal recourse for whichever entity took the risk in paying for the show's creation to demand money for views or even stop the showing of it. Sure, Tolkien may have beat the pirates in that case, but whether it's typical is debatable, and everyone can agree it's not guaranteed.

That's just wishful thinking. Some people do their own research, but most are low-information and rarely know the names of who makes what they watch. Remember: the majority of American TV viewers are the demographic that watched Honey Boo-Boo and are responsible for the Simpsons living far past the expiration date.

Honey Boo Boo never got near the majority of viewership and the Simpson's ratings have never been worse than they are now. Do you just make these factoids up on your gut feeling and contempt for the average american?

I'm of course referring to how streaming services like Netflix "air" content. I'm surprised you ignored that segment. Go anywhere on the internet, even shitholes like Tumblr and Reddit, and you will find a sizeable and growing number of people who'll support the original release regardless of piracy.

Many of those Simpsons fans know who Matt Groening is. And many fans of other cartoons recognize names like Craig McCracken and Jhonen Vasquez.

Remember: If you have a monopoly on something that's high in demand, people will buy from you regardless of the quality, that includes ideas and art. By allowing alternative creators to make their own Simpsons episodes, you will be taking away the original show's audience and redirecting it to the better, well written versions that are independently reviewed to separate them from the crap ones, thus promoting creativity.

...

What you wanna make something of it?

lol, you really don't know anything about fans do you?

I know enough to know how the capitalism is supposed to work. I bet you haven't even looked up its definition in all your years on the internet.

>[email protected]/* */
the fuck are you doing

there are just enough people watching it to kept them afloat

just sayin

Oooo, your fucked now boy.

Getting back on track, copyright allows corporations to bully creators and water down their visons to appeal to wider audiences and/or cheaper budgets. If the creators could make their show at another network, you can bet damn well that the executives they're working with would give them high budgets, maximum creative freedom and minimum executive meddling ensure they don't lose a competitive edge to their competitors.

You know how there's a massive glut of shit movies, video games and cartoons? Abolishing the corporations "rights" to exclusively express ideas would ensure that products like these will exist no longer, and they can let creators tell the stories they've always wanted without having to pander to executives.

go away, newfag

sounds more like you're thinking of contracts, buddy. copyright's the only thing protecting you from getting your creation stolen by others, but I guess some guys don't mind getting cucked as long as they can try to sleep with someone else's wife

think of it more like painting. the way you phrase it, someone's barring you from painting with a certain color, whereas in reality it's that someone's keeping you from painting a certain shape

if you're so creatively bankrupt as to not be able to make your own shit and so horrible at selling your abilities to the successful copyright owners that you can't get the creative control to work with those titles, then I'd say it's better to go ahead and blow your brains out

You must be on the wrong board. Here, I'm sure they'll like you there.
>>>Holla Forums

You can't steal a vision, as it is intangible. This "stealing" you're referring to is just people remixing ideas. Nobody's losing their property by someone remixing their original ideas. And guess what, when there's so many different versions of a work, people will be curious to experience the original, since it had to be remarkable to have so many versions.

Why should any artist be at the behest of an executive who knows nothing about art? Do you know how difficult it is to make a cartoon that isn't a shitty SJW-ridden low-budget slice of life show, nowadays? And no, remix artists are not creatively bankrupt, that would be the networks and executives who half ass the creative process, and sell their works on brand recognition alone, producing cheap cynical garbage only made for the bottom line. Why do you think nu-PPG was made? And by remixing an idea, you create entirely new versions with uniquely varied interpretations. If the original didn't focus on a fascinating plot point or character, that could be explored in a different version. If a fantasy show would've been better with better effects and visuals, that can be fixed in a different version with a higher budget. And if there's a show with wasted potential, that could be fixed and the awesome story it could've told would be told.

People buy into Disney, Cartoon Network, and Nickelodean's garbage because they have monopolies on the expression of popular works. If I had a monopoly on water but it was shit, people would still buy from me, as I'm the sole proprietor. Why should it be illegal for people to remix ideas into their own works? Wouldn't it be better to have people who are passionate about a work to do more with an idea and create their own versions rather than executives who only care about the bottom line? If you decentralize the networks, and take away their monopoly "rights." You will end up with better cartoons, video games and movies, with competition between competing studios for the most well created version of a work. This is capitalism 101.

I'm for a return to short-term copyright.

Yeah, in the information age you're more able to call out wholesale plagiarism, but if one glasses company can hold a 70% monopoly, a publisher can make mad bank putting your web-comic in book form to people who buy it from stores none the wiser. If there weren't an actual law against it, somebody's gonna seize the opportunity.

I'd say from publishing to 20 years after. When that long has passed, there's a good chance a talented fan who grew up with something could do a far better job than someone who simply owns the "rights."

Pepper and Carrot, a cute, funny, comfy and really well drawn webcomic about a little witch apprentice and her cat, licensed as CC-BY and with all KRA (Krita format) files released as is.

peppercarrot.com/en/static2/philosophy

He is making $2690/mo from this, according to his patreon. This may not seem like much, but he is French, and in Europe, this is a fairly comfortable amount. I just wonder what the fuck could that guy accomplish if he started to write a real plot. Seems like he would be interested in making a game about his comic happen. Maybe I should contact him.

So what, you can be the idea guy? LOL

I'm a programmer, you idiot.

Yes, corporations fans should be able to carve out a living with the fruits of somebody else's labor after 20 years. That'll force innovation into the market.

Seriously though, that's hardly an argument in favor of short-term copyright.

Look up the case of Tolkien and how Ace Books published the unauthorized american edition of The Lord of The Rings. Spoiler alert, Tolkien won by raising awareness to support his authorized copies, which were marked with a message that his copies were the only official ones and that consumers should buy his copies to support authors. And even though the Ace copies were cheaper, Tolkien still won, because readers had a moral imperative to support creators. And that was before the information age. Nowadays' there's an anti-piracy culture amongst fans of works. Some people won't know better. But for the majority, they're willing to support the creators regardless.

Refer to this:

Isn't it funny none of the pro-copyright crowd has responded to my argument about networks and executives exploiting copyright and do nothing good with their "properties"?

once again, it's tangible the instant it's published
yeah, remixing. that's creative genius
here's an idea. you like a picture? think you can take a better one? don't take a picture of that picture, take a picture of something else
to make one? only as difficult as it is to make any cartoon. to produce one and sell it to a company? difficult as hell

you don't wanna do the legwork? don't be surprised when you don't get far
well, they don't have a monopoly on anything. before the internet, sure, you couldn't really release anything to the public eye, but now you basically have no excuse

but people are used to these because this is what's given to them. you want to make a difference? try giving them something else
your analogy is shit and you should feel like shit
but regardless, water is the only kind of liquid you can live on. you can watch other peoples' cartoons at any time
corporate execs care about the bottom line because they got to keep the business afloat. what fucking excuse do you have for not having the creative minutia of musclepower to make your own THING rather than a version

I don't wanna read your own batman story. give me another superhero who's a detective

Looks like we have another Holla Forums on our hands.
The products you make from an idea is yours. The idea itself isn't.
Right, because people should not build and improve upon original ideas they're passionate about. So what if the finale of a good show was a major disappointment, so what if passionate fans can't make their own episodes of their favourite shows. Whenever there's an original idea that has room for improvement, people should just leave it as it is, and not try to create their own interpretations. Really useful advice for artists you got there.
That's false equivalence. You can't compare artistic works to photography, as they are two completely different mediums. And the amount of creativity you can get from photography is limited. And you say my analogies are shit.
Exactly, and this paradigm isn't going to stop unless we let passionate and creative people remix the networks works better than the networks *cough* nu-PPG *cough*.

People have put immense dedication into their fanworks in the form of comics, animation, and others. You can't say at least some of them don't put a lot of creativity into their works.
Yes they do. They have exclusive rights to be compensated from create works based on the popular ideas they claim to own.
What better way to deliver a better product than to undermine the networks' consumer base and redirect them to better versions of popular works?
The level of necessity is irrelevant. If an ISP had a monopoly on providing internet, people will still buy from them regardless of the quality, even though they can live without internet.
Ah yes, the strawman that remixing works isn't creative. Compare the Polanski version of Macbeth to the Kurzel one, and despite them being remixes, both versions have widely different interpretations on the story. With Macbeth slowly becoming evil, and him being sympathetic. Wouldn't you say these versions are creative enough?

Try responding to this and get back to me:

and what is stopping you from making your own version and giving it for free ?

Nothing, people do it all the time.

What I'm advocating is for artists to be compensated for remixing works. In other words, I want to apply the free market to creative industries by eliminating IP and letting networks and studios compete against each other.

Did it earn back its investment in that time?

Okay, this thread has gone on long enough.

So you want to be paid for your fanfiction. How about instead you and your creatively bankrupt horseshit go get fucked?

kek, you creatively bankrupt cucks still can't come up with a good argument for why you can't just make your own thing

does your mom know you use such salty language user?

I'm almost surprised at how utterly cucked Holla Forums is. It takes a special kind of submissive bootlicker to actually defend Disney and other multi-billion dollar corporations when they bribe the government to extend copyright restrictions far beyond a human lifetime and do everything in their power to promote surveillance and undermine internet security. Seriously, they have plenty of money to hire their own shills. You don't need to do it for free. I bet you fuckers support shit like TPP and TTIP too.

Almost anyone on Holla Forums could come up with a better concept than most of the tripe that ends up on TV.

In fact, can you explain why Disney had to rip off old fairy tales and other public domain works rather than creating their own original stories?
If you despise derivative works so much, can you agree that Disney are guilty of gross commercial theft from the public domain?

https:[email protected]/* *//disney-works-based-on-public-domain-eb49ac34c3da

How is that theft?

It is "theft" in the same way that making porn of Micky Mouse is "theft". That is to say, it isn't really theft but Disney's lawyers will still call it that when they prosecute you.

Under the copyright policy written by Disney and signed into law through their bribes, doing the same thing to more recent works will be illegal from now on. Nobody will ever be able to do to Disney what Disney did to Edgar Rice Burroughs or Rudyard Kipling. They have exploited the more reasonable duration of copyright laws and then pulled the ladder up behind them.

then do what they did and copy the older stories you lazy nigger

and you wanna do the same thing, only you can't be patient enough to wait for public domain because you niggers are all impatient

first one was meant for

Patience doesn't factor into it. The duration of copyright is being extended through bribery at the same rate as time is passing. Disney's (very few) original works will never enter the public domain unless policy changes.
Also, please refer to . At this point you're just throwing around insults because someone dared to question your favorite company.

i don't care about disney
i haven't seen a single disney movie since wreck-it-ralph and i don't watch any of the disney channels save for one show that i DVR & watch it a couple of days later
I doubt even the average user can truthfully admit to not watching a disney movie (including star wars)

you want them to stop? then do one of two things
either cost them so much money (boycotts, lawsuits, etc) so they can't pay off anyone by 2023
or get them to stop by coercion. appeal to the board, become a member of the board, become a commodity to them, just find a way to get them to listen to you and come up with a reasonable argument for why they should stop. I'd say the most obvious one is that they haven't really made any money off mickey cartoons in years

You know, there are some works that'll never have their full potential realized and see the light of day.

Wander Over Yonder was originally going to have an overarching story. Motorcity could've been a great action series. And that's just to name a few. And now they're in the hands of Disney, who'll do nothing with them forever. And reboots? Please, they're not gonna invite the original creator, just look at nu-PPG.

Look up the cases where Disney bought films in production only to do nothing with them, because they didn't want their competitors to have them.

These people have the gall to support copyright when it has been used as a weapon to stifle art.

Because the solution to telling executives to stop worked with for Activision, EA, Konami, Marvel and every other big corporation, oh wait. I don't know if you know this, but that's not how human nature works. People are going to do what they believe is right for them regardless of evidence and reason.

Here's a better idea: Undermine their consumer base by doing better things with their works than they can. Once the word is out that a studio has made versions of their works that are better than the original, consumers will start buying from them, and Disney will be forced to invest quality into their stories or close down their departments.

you believe you can do better, nigger? then get off yo ass and DO better. talk's as cheap as yo jew self

I've been lurking this thread for a bit and a lot of what I see seems to be a bunch of armchair legislators trying to tell me how long I should be allowed to be in charge of my own shit.

And that's a shame. So look at those shows. Study them. Figure out what made those shows work, and then incorporate those concepts into something new. It's not that difficult.

I love Dragon's Dogma, but if I were making a fantasy RPG of my own, then I wouldn't want to make Dragon's Dogma 2. Instead I would focus on putting together my own setting, with its own flavor, and then work into it the thematic elements of DD that I enjoy.

Oh, so you mean like Indie games are doing with Mighty No. 9 and Yooka-laylee? Here's the thing though, what if a story has special plot points and elements that can only be done in a particular universe? What if the original writer had something in store that can only be done with the original work? You can knock-off all the characters and scenes you want, but at the end of the day, there's so much you can do with the original that can't be done with a knock-off. How is this a good argument for copyright?

You know, I was going to argue that corporations shouldn't be able to hold copyright, and that it should stick with the creator forever.

However that causes problems with group efforts, commissions etc.

But before that, You reminded me of Mighty No. 9.

I suppose by "open source" in this context you really mean 'Free Culture' works?

These are works that are usually either licensed under something like creative commons or in the public domain.

In any case, 'Pepper and Carrot' actually proves you can make decent money using these licenses for your works, if Davids Patreon and the recent succesful Indigogo campaign for the animation project are anything to go by, at least.

wait then what exactly you want to do ?
because if you want to make a work with copyright and then sell it the only solution is either do it be dammed the consequences or try to change the law making it legal, or is there another option that i'm not aware of ?

Technically, you wouldn't even need to ask him permission; because of the license he uses (CC BY 4.0), all you'd need to do is give proper attribution.

I came up with something that can work as a copyright reform based on what I've heard from Holla Forumss complaints

sounds great mate

To me, it looked like that cat is screwing the duck.

Too much porn.

If that's what you think porn looks like, you've stumbled into the wrong place.

-t chronic masturbator

Implying that's at all unusual here.

so being in a room full of chronic masturbators makes you fell better ?

Well, it is one of my many fetishes…

why don't you just post them all in form of list ?

Nah. I've helped you derail the thread enough already, user.

bah who needs a thread this shit, besides who says is offtopic ? jap porn its a prime example of selling stuff that is copyrigthed and no one bating a eye

Japan has different copyright laws than the western world.

then why don't bring those laws to the west ?

Because in some ways their laws are even worse. For example, there is no such thing as 'fair use' in the Japanese system.

wat? how is that even possible ?

That sounds like it would absolutely cripple journalism.

How do they have doujinshi, then?

You still haven't explained why Disney (and many other studios) didn't do what you're telling others to do. If you think that all creative content should be entirely original, then start condemning the companies who make billions from selling knock-off copies of old stories.

I'm sorry, do you own my computer? What gives you the right to dictate what ones and zeros I'm allowed to have on it and what I'm allowed to do with it? You're demanding the right to dictate what people are allowed to do with their own hardware when it has zero effect on you. You do not have a right to expected future profits. You don't have a right to a monopoly on binary data which can be shared at zero cost. File sharing is the modern equivalent of libraries, and you don't get to burn it down just to fatten your own wallet.

Do it with what skills, manpower and resources? Independent creators and rival channels/services could already start competing with their own characters and settings. Meanwhile in Japan the bar is set extremely high for commercial animation even though the industry has no competition to worry about.

Well aren't you a spiteful little shekelgrubber

Parody doujinshi (especially those of the pornographic variety) are usually sold in limited quantities for annual conventions, so nobody's going to waste time and money trying to block publication or sue.

Also, doujinshi generally describes all self-published work in Japan. Porn and otherwise

...

The industry actively allows Comiket and similar events to exist, it's not just that they can't be bothered doing anything about them. They even have booths at Comiket and sell their own stuff. They evidently recognize that doujin works are not a threat to the industry and are in fact beneficial to it. Too bad they don't understand the same thing about people uploading anime OPs on YouTube.

Doujinshi is the term for manga, doujin is the general term.

Fuck off and make your own shit you lazy kike
No one is gonna pay you for your shit fanfiction/ripoffs

What about the creators who have made their own shit and can't continue to improve upon them because a corporation has the rights to their works? Just look at Metal Gear and how Konami bullied Kojima and his team. If IP weren't the case, he would've gone to continue his franchise somewhere else. And now, Konami can make Metal Gear into a franchise zombie to join up with the ranks of Call of Duty and Halo. All because they're the sole proprietors.

Need I say more?

You can argue that both can be beneficial except doujin works are created by the artists, unlike uploading anime OPs on Youtube. Maybe that's why they don't see it as the same thing.

well, first off Konami funded MGS and gave him extensions well past what his contract said he'd take only to churn out a shitty, repetitive, unfinished product. yeah, he should SO be allowed to keep making MGS games

Ground Zeroes was a mistake, but it wasn't Kojima's choice to make a tech demo. That was the executives who have a legal monopoly on MGS. In fact, monopolies over the expression and compensation of certain ideas is why the film, gaming and television industry can get away with churnning out so many shit products. Why don't you respond to me on that point?

Kojima can literally make any game he wants. he chooses to make MGS games and work with Konami, who fund his endeavors

if you want, you can make anything you want. prove to me you're better than these people at making a great story, just flex the creative muscle a little more and make it both an original concept and original setting with original characters or be the sloppy seconds to someone else's writing all your life like the cuck you are

Again with the fallacy you can't be creative if you remix other people's works.

Refer to these.

but you can't. you're literally just riding on someone else's work

Record companies feature their music in anime OPs and EDs so they can advertise the singles. People watch the anime for free and may or may not buy any music. But as soon as you put that OP/ED on YouTube it turns into a dangerous copyright violation that threatens the profits of the record company. It's crazy, and a good example of how companies can be very irrational and actively sabotage themselves for no good reason.

Yes you can. Like I said before, even if you're "riding on someone else's work" You're still creating your own version which could have a vastly different interpretation from the original.

Remember the two Macbeth movies?

wow, i'm so impressed. that must have taken a bastion of creativity

just keep sucking on the dick of someone who did something you want to do. you'll never be better than them because you'll always live in their shadow

As opposed to sucking the dicks of Disney and Cartoon Network who rehash their works to profit only off their name recognition? No thanks. I'm gonna be on the side that wants that phased out. And the best way to achieve that is to get rid of the enabler, IP.

Those are not re-boots
do you even understand the words you are saying?

you made your point completely invalid the second you mentioned the PPG reboot

that show was a massive ratings failure for CN, once and for all proving that brand recognition is worthless without at least basic quality

your way will only lead to more shitty imitators, instead of quality original content

Can you not read?

Do understand how capitalism works? If not, then you should've done your research before coming here.

Basically, competition between firms ensures a high level of quality for their products. That goes for any industry. Whether PPG was a ratings failure is irrelevant. There should be a Netflix-style system of distribution. And even if there would be shitty imitations there'd still be passionate fans with an acumen for creativity willing to invest effort into there work.

...

you obviously don't

Dude! Those were a thing since the 60s!

Do tell me how competition is a bad thing in creative industries and not the others.

user, it's not.
Parody is not meant to allow for shit like this. Especially now that TFS is a glorified redub.
Parody under fair use laws are for shit like Weird Al's music. What TFS does is the equivalent to taking a song and just changing the pronouns and maybe a handful of words here and there, to give the exact same meaning with nothing really to add, and then expecting to be allowed to pay for it.

And their expectation is clearly correct since Toei and all the other companies aren't suing them into oblivion and they are paid money by their faggot fans. And Weird Al's songs are legally closer to covers than a fair use parody.

Toei does periodically try to take down their videos and channel, faggot. Youtube's just majorly retarded when it comes to the subject.

Yeah that youtube so infamously lax on following DMCA requests and everyone knows Toei can't afford the paper for a cease and desist letter.

you are the one trying to get rid of competition

Yeah, that's why the big dueling movies are Batman v Superman and Batman v Superman
you're clearly an idiot. you want to compete? you don't make a toyota to compete with toyota, you make a goddamned ford to compete with them

try they're lax on actually punishing people who got popularity prior to the takedowns
if toei wanted, they can sue, and most likely win against, TeamFuckStain (many violations of copyright), youtube, (not enforcing the original takedowns), and most likely destroy the abridged series community in the process

that's if they had the balls and pettiness to do that. they probably don't have both

Maybe add a line about copyright inheritance.

Ha, I can imagine that shit. The faggots are mostly 12-year-olds who didn't grow up on DBZ and hate the actual series and cry when you tell them they're not "real" fans or that TFS is shit. I'd love to see the salt thrown at Toei as if they have no right to fight for their copyright, because I've seen those kinds of fans. They literally go through TFS (and not Toei) when making DBZ fanart to sell with TFS quotes because they 'don't want to infringe on TFS copyright.'
And then when their art gets taken down by Toei they still cry. Because TFS fans are even more cancer than TFS itself.

Could anyone give me a strong reason why copyright is necessary?

I can see why there's a need for some copyright laws to stop people from straight up copying and selling someone else's work, but the ones we have can be a little absurd. Things like western publishers having to remove the musical references from Jojo, because referencing Queen is totally the same thing as selling a bootlegged Queen album.

Because is necessary for ideas to have owners. I don't want people to be free to use my ideas, I want to make money.

Is it necessary for the first burger restaurant to sue other burger restaurants because they're using its ideas? You can argue that IP doesn't apply in food, but the fundamental principle of the ownership of ideas is the same.

Fuck off, retard, every burger place has its own recipe, and that is copyrighted, not the entire idea of burgers.
3/10 you got me to respond.

Wouldn't that mean every different remix of a particular work has its own writing and art design. And therefore, let its creators be compensated from its profits?
The fundamental principle of IP is that certain people should have the exclusive right to express certain ideas. I used burgers as a metaphor for copyrighted art in case you couldn't tell. I simply applied IP to another creative industry that doesn't have it to entertain the notion of what it would be like if IP were applied to food.

You just don't give up, do you?

You mean when some faggot didn't like the ending to Gilgamesh and decided to make his shitty fanfic of an ending where Enkidu comes back to life?

Just because one guy made one shit fanfic doesn't mean other people wouldn't make good works based on the original. And believe me, those good artists would get a hell of a lot more funding and support than those whiny bitches.

TPP soon.

That's not how copyright works

That's right. IP doesn't extend to recipes, lists of ingredients on a piece of paper. Imagine if that was the case and no one could improve upon a recipe under the pretence of "copyright infringement".

Imagine if that was the case and little old grannies got served with a subpoena for baking cookies because she stumbled upon a recipe claimed by some lawsuit happy corporation.

I thought recipes for restaraunts were trade secrets not copyright?

I thought it got passed already?

They are. I'm just using that as a hypothetical example of what IP would be like from a maximist world view.

t. copyrightfag

Elaborate.

What is the process for this?

He's clearly saying it's a waste for the viewers, not Disney.

A sign of a dying civilization.

A civilization suffering from ignorance.

A nation plagued by jews

And they call us kikes for opposing the jews' lobbying.