Copyright Term Extension

...

Isn't extending copyright an ex-post facto law and therefore illegal?

Copyright is utter bullshit when you view it based on natural law, since you're not depriving anyone of their ability to do things they would do naturally.

THIS

Trademark needs to fuck off and die too.

I remember watching that multi-part series years ago and it pissed me the fuck off because the hipster faggot that made them had the most retarded editing scheme I've ever seen. He would would end his train of thought and then film himself in a mirror begging for shekels before then resuming his train of thought on the topic after already sounding like he had reached a proper conclusion. I hope that version you linked fixed that shit.

a good example of what our founding fathers thought of copyright: monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/moldboard-plow

I'm writing "Holla Forums the book" so this is relevant…

Really?

I'm writing Holla Forums the thesis.

I won't say too much, but I can share so minor details:

The protagonist is a 7 foot tall aryan with WN ideals… he has a pregnant aryan wife with long hair, and two other aryan girls that take care of the wife while he's away.

*some

Some already wrote Mein Kampf

ROLLING BACK COPYRIGHT LAWS WOULD BE LITERALLY ANOTHER SHOAH GOYS!

Copyright should only last long enough for the creator to make back what he used to create it and some % profit. The problem with the patents and copyright is that they make money off of it nearly forever. At a real job, say a chef for example, the chef needs to cook food every time he wants to be paid. But an author under copyright only needs to write one book and he keeps getting paid for it forever. It's nonsense.

I don't think that's quite true. Disney can still hold copyright over, say, Mickey Mouse as a character even if works featuring him start falling into public domain. As long as they continue their "claim" over him by involving him in their business ventures, you can't make your own cartoon featuring him without their permission. However, they can't exclusively claim "Steamboat Willie" as theirs.

Oh wait, said this already. Should've read the thread.

Disney is rolling in his grave, his dream died with him.
A shame that Disney is now controlled by the (((enemies))) he went against.

lol

I'm going to be releasing the book for free, but people can choose what price they can pay. I wrote this so Holla Forumsacks can be both entertain as well as guided, so I don't expect to get paid in this demographic. However, I fallen on bad times, and I was looking for another demographic where people would buy the book.

If you have ideas, I'm all ears.

Yeah something that is a trademark or symbol of their brand has to be protected, but after a certain time the individual films would need to go to the public domain.

Who cares, why not just meme Mickey into a Nazi mouse just like Moonman. It'd be funny to hear his voice rapping in the next album.

Contrary to this, as a writer about to release my first Holla Forums book, I only support copyright for a few years (maybe a decade tops).

I would have a problem if after that time my book gets (((co-opted))) and turned into the opposite of what it was.

don't you mean "next cartoon" ?

I wouldn't mind my work getting parodied myself, I don't know why corporations get so butthurt over that.

Have you ever met a Jew?

I have, but the magnitude…

Mickey needs to be free. If Walt could see how the jews he despised all around him who mocked and ridiculed the man were now the owners he'd GTKRWN. That's without seeing the expected degeneracy they're now producing today. Man was a true artist with his works.

How do we take them down Holla Forums?

Disney already did this themselves, 23 years ago: disney.wikia.com/wiki/Mickey_Unrapped

Hehe.

I was actually tempted to type mine up using a character-driven narrative as well. Something along the lines of Johnny Progressive goes about their merry inclusive, non-binary, sexually liberated life before one day posting on Holla Forums. Gradually, Johnny begins to refer to themself as "he" and develops increasing amounts of discomfort around his college friends. Things go downhill for him from there.

But I decided to settle on a third person analysis on Holla Forums as a societal phenomenon and an where the natural law and substance of unrestrained human interaction collides with the artificial systems that compose modern social constructions. The final outcome of this conflict is a subversive process by which the men that are oppressed by the mechanisms of those constructions reconcile their "political incorrectness" with their true nature. Essentially, anonymity is the means by which people are able to test the amount of tyranny in their society before reacting appropriately to its given quantification.

Obviously, it has to cover an array of topics: pornography, degeneracy, social engineering, memetics, the Holohoax, kikes, race, etc..

*"phenomenon and an ideological asylum".

At least they're slightly better than CtR and CREW when it comes shilling corporate/bureaucratic/legal shit like this, but they're still a bunch corporate/bureaucratic useful idiots that do it for free.

Believe it or not, I'm not contrarian for the sake of being so. I don't mind arguing the point but asking why copyright is bad when I can only imagine a future filled with mickey mouse knockoffs isn't that unreasonable.

That said, I do agree with that other user's point that it shouldn't be used to bury works.

Walt Disney is dead, his children don't run the company, why do the kikes turning girls into whores deserve his legacy?

Release for free on your website, and sell in the popular ebook stores (kobo, amazon, etc).

Disney/Mickey is just an example, I despise Disney in its current incarnation of course.

imagine what would happen to marvel, DC, disney, cartoon network, nickolodeon, EA games, actiblizz, bungie, bethdesa, and hollywood if every major company in the entertainment industry just lost all of their copyrights
just imagine…

I hope Trump hears this, copyright is cancer and this sounds like good fun. Also the entertainment jews and media jews are often once in the same; Disney owns a commanding % of VICE for fuck's sake. Not very family friendly, eh?

Copyright holders need to pay a set amount of money to the government for use in public works which increases every year capping out at some reasonable maximum (say, $1 million a year), and if it isn't paid in part over any 5 year period, they should lose their copyright.

This allows big brands like Mickey to be maintained while allowing smaller brands to revert to the public, who can use them as they see fit.

There is little reason to allow arbitrarily long exclusivity dates for these characters if they aren't generating money for the public fund. It does more good for the public if they are released to them.

THE MOUSE IS OURS NOW

...

huge companies would snap up smaller ones and hoard content.
I'd rather wipe out all copyright and trademark law as I am anxiously awaiting for 100% Made in America "Mackey Mouse" products.

"If you want ducks on the ground, I'll get you ducks on the ground."

...

Why not both?

The idea of making information illegal to share, to re-derive, or to appear to re-derive (that is, copyright) is a very dangerous one, but at least it can be mitigated by limiting how long that illegality can last for.

Every year this group at Duke University lists creative works that should have become public domain by pre-1976 laws.

law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2017/pre-1976/

FREE THE MOUSE

PRAISE KEK

That's fine, because they would eventually have to pay a million dollars for each character. They can only sustain that if they are continuously producing new content, or old content is selling like crazy.

Understand that this is a good way to fund public works.

It's not about "butthurt" so much as it's about keeping their copyright locked down; under current copyright law if you ignore other people using things that you've copyrighted - even in extremely minor and profit-less iterations, like SFM pornography - then that can legally be treated as a de facto surrender of your copyright and opens the doors for other people (including companies) to do whatever they want with the shit you own. Not to say that people can't abuse these laws like a red-headed stepchild, however.

...

...

...

that's a shitty tripcode

shut up carlos

GAS
YOUR
SELF
KIKE!

No it's not, they already horde content they have no legal right to. Giving a good hard expiration date saves us from bullshit like that Happy Birthday mess.

...

intellectual "property" is not excludable and therefore not property.

Bro, what year do you live in? Because last time I checked, kids didn't give a fuck about mickey mouse anymore. Now I couldn't tell you what cartoons kids are into now a days, but any loser chinks who want to try to sell a bunch of knock off mickey mouse stuff are gonna find out real quick that nobody wants their garbage.

You might as well be concerned about a future filled with knock off Captain Planet figurines. Ain't gonna happen.

I don't like vidya anymore, but this concept has me reconsidering.

I worked at a preschool and the kids there fucking loved the new 3D mickeys playhouse, almost as much as frozen or dora

The full argument is that creatively bankrupt libertarians (this means jews, libertarianism is semitic to the core) want to be able to steal the work of creative aryans and turn a profit off of it.

I have a hard time being upset about this particular branch of copyright law. If I created a national or international icon, I'd want to pass it down to my descendants the same way I'd pass down a business. It'd be just as much my legacy as land I owned and worked, or business I built, or anything else I created. Being a "creative" property doesn't change that it's something I made.

This, pretty much. The libertarians agitating against copyright law don't realize how much like commies they really are, demanding other people's property.

Mickey Mouse is likely trademarked. In any case, as long as Disney reapplies for a copyright on any of its intellectual property–it extends the duration of the copyright another 20 years. They likely have a team of lawyers specifically for this task.

I think we need a pretty serious reform of IP laws, to be honest. I just don't see this as being part of what's broken.

The fact that you're legally required to aggressively defend your IP or you lose it is bullshit and leads to the environment we have now where game companies send legal threats to fan projects like that Metroid 2 remake, or Pokemon Uranium.

A man can dream

It weakens the jews control of entertainment media by preventing them from monopolizing popular ideas. Do you like comics but think diversity and eminisim is gay faggot shit? Without copyright you could make and sell your own comics without marvel and DC dragging you to the court of herschel goldberg the copywright lawyer. Without copyright Holla Forums would have all the more reach to culture jam, and you could get away with leglly pirating anything as long as you wait a while.

Yeah, that's certainly true. We should do it more like continental Europe (not Britain) where copyright is kept closer to the original artists and their descendants, doesn't require as much active policing if any to maintain, and is actually fairly hard to transfer away.

You already can make your own comics.

.. or don't be a greedy kike and everyone wins

Consider that this loosely translates to canon being crowdsourced. Whatever gets the most attention is what will be considered de facto 'how it really went'. This works for Touhou, because it's got a fractious subjective reality universe and all potential timelines are equally canon, but other series don't have that out. Consider what happened to Dr. Who. Now apply that to anything that gets the wrong kind of fandom attention, and now imagine you don't need the writers to pander. The cancerous fanbase will carefully select by mass approval what is "correct" and drown out anything else by flooding to the lowest common denominator.

I'm not well read up on how other countries handle theirs, but I've been amiable to Japan's system for the above-mentioned handling of fanworks. ZUN just lets anyone do anything and even sell it for money, but he still holds the rights.

A single glance at hollywood should show you that that's a retarded idea. You're incentivising pandering to the lowest common denominator.

But I can't hypothetically get together a group of long time comic fans who want to replace feminist thor and sheboon ironman with somthing true to the original, and then have that compete with marvel's diversity program for dominance.

Though I'm much more interested in depriving kikes of any and all influence over our people's minds, knocking out the strength of copyright is just one way to do that. Being able to create derivitive content is just a bonus.

Reminder

But the issue is precisely that the copyright holders are greedy kikes with teams of greedy kike lawyers at their beck and call.

This is assuming after the series goes defunct or the original creative staff behind the property have all died. Obviously the new official Metroid or Castlevania or Legend of Zelda will find itself a spot in the canon.
However, I see your concern. Most fanbases are massive repositories of human trash that can and will generate the most putrid excuses of "literature" imaginable.

I will bring up the point that Bram Stoker's Dracula had no mention of Belmonts or whips or his son Alucard, all of those were subsequent additions to the original story after Stoker's copyright expired. Mind you that not all of those are Castlevania, Alucard was introduced in a Universal movie.
Dracula's been through lots of reinterpretations, retellings, new sequels, whole new storylines and origin stories but hasn't really changed the character's overall image. At the end of the day, Dracula is a vampire lord who gets defeated by a vampire hunter Morris, Belmont, Lecarde, Renard, Helsing - pick your poison.

Also, anything that weavers copyrights for film, music, printed, media will be of major impact for these companies, since they solely cornered these markets.

NAZI DUCKS AGAINST NORMIE CUCKS

Even if Trump Vetoes the inevitable copyright extension next year, all vidja game related works won't enter the public domain until like fucking 2080, just sayin'

Probably, but that's likely legally debatable. Certainly the mickey mouse ears logo is a legitimate trademark of Disney's among other things. They have enough lawyers to bankrupt anyone who tried fighting it in court, even if it probably wouldn't hold up.

They can't just reapply for renewal of copyright. Copyright has a maximum duration, which they are fast approaching. What they do is lobby congress to increase the duration of ALL copyrights for another 20 years. If trump vetoed the bill for that, Congress would have to come up with enough support to override the veto. I don't think there's a tremendous amount of popular support for it, so it'd be a great showing of which republicans are absolute cancer.

This. If they have to compete with fan works - FINANCIALLY- with their 100 year old properties, then they won't be able to get away with the sort of outrageous pozzed shit, because their audience will switch to their competition. It will weaken their grip on normie culture.

How is that in any way more libertarian? I'll grant you it isn't a communist notion, but it is fucking retarded.

Copyright should be up until the Author's death, plus maybe forty years, tops. You and your kids can benefit. Your grand-kids better hope your kids aren't worthless pieces of shit who can't make or manage money.

do you know the difference between a cow and mickey mouse?

YOU CAN'T MILK A COW FOR 70 YEARS

But Ziggy told me that Mickey Mouse grew up a cow…

The knockoffs happen BECAUSE of the money involved. If you let people make whatever, and reproduce it as much as they want, they no one will buy the knockoff unless it's actually good. The money thrown to the gutter is because people are forced to, more or less.

I don't want to sound like a demoralization shill, but it feels like they'll win again. They always have. At this point, "Muh Mickey Mouse" is going to be a fucking fixture of American law.

Still though, Trump happened. This year and last year are fucking unreal. I hope shit gets fucking flipped on it's side and we win. I'm not tired of winning yet.

The Copyright Jews are some of the most parasitic variants of this Jew infestation (spiritually on the level of bankers).
questioncopyright.org/promise
http:// forward.com/culture/187128/ex-hasidic-woman-marks-five-years-since-she-shaved/
https:// detroitinterfaithcouncil.com/2014/06/17/is-it-true-that-orthodox-jewish-women-shave-their-heads-and-wear-wigs/
https:// curiosity.com/topics/why-hasidic-jewish-women-shave-their-heads-curiosity/

consider how kikey it was to separate the useful physical patent from the copyright. Both a work of art and and an invention take labor, but to derive an income from an invention takes much more effort and investment than to derive an income from a copyrighted work. Why should the term limit for a patent be 17yr and a copyright 105yr ?
Allowing a patent or copyright to expire is of great advantage to society because if you don't you will be granting a perpetual monopoly on something useful.

That doesn't seem like nonsense to me. If you write something and someone buys it why shouldn't you recieve pay for it? And if you so happen to die and your book makes money after youre dead (as many do) why shouldn't that money still come in to a family trust?

Now keep in mind I don't know much if anything about copyright and IP laws but in your specific example I disagree with you.

It'd be Heaven on Earth if copyright didn't exist.

...

In the world before modern media it did cost money to print things or make recordings but in this modern age when it costs nothing to duplicate a movie, a song or a book why should the author be granted a perpetual monopoly on it? A limited term for patents and copyrights makes the most sense in the balance of benefits between the author and society.

If you write something and someone buys it why shouldn't you recieve pay for it? And if you so happen to die and your book makes money after youre dead (as many do) why shouldn't that money still come in to a family trust?

People are able to come up with nearly identical ideas independently and at about roughly same time. Look at Calculus for example among other discoveries. Look at world literature which largely developed in a vacuum due to language barriers. I don't have a problem with people making money from their work, it's that copyright essentially stops other creators from doing that. It has allowed for Jewish monopolies to exert major control over public consciousness because people have to walk on eggshells when treading near similar ideas which might have been developed on their own or as reference. To take this even further, there are HUGE amounts of science which are basically no-go zones just because of how ridiculous the concept of "intellectual property" is. Why should the works of others be able to dictate the intellectual output of others? Even from an laissez-faire, or perhaps esp in one, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for government to protect these works for an indefinite amount of time, which would effectively be governments reinforcing kike monopolies at the expense of others.

...

As the author of two books, I think this is just fine.

Seriously, the last I heard, copyright was good for 100 years, allowing some of the rights to be passed on to the creator's children.
I see no reason to expand this. Very few people live beyond 100 years, and they usually do their creative work while at least in their 20's so this protects the creator's legacy and allows him something to pass on to his children, for some limited time, at least.

If those who create cannot own the rights to their work for more than, say, 20 years, then all you have done is hand their creation over to large corporations.
A corporation will simply wait 20 years without picking up the author or songwriter, as they know damn well they can simply steal it from them 20 years down the road & promote it for their own profit.

Why do you want to give corporations the power to wait out authors, etc., and just steal their work? To then produce that work in Chinese sweatshops, so the Jew CEO's can filch every penny?

With your plan, there is no reason to create anything, as you will never profit from your work, anyway.

This kike mentality is a cancer. People will create and people will profit, in much the same way that they did FOR MILLENIA BEFORE COPYRIGHT EVER EXISTED.

What will die is Hollywood. What will die is the thoroughly Judaized music propaganda industry. What will die is the billion dollar IP cartel which the most malignant kikes on the planet are at the helm of.

I'm also a published author. Copyright as it stands, and the completely absurd conclusions that have been reached by the lobbyists and their interests, must die.

No kidding?
I'm writing "Holla Forums, the analysis"…

...

Corporations are easier because they know marketing.
You can write the finest book on Earth, but if nobody knows about it, it won't sell.

In any case, that does not refute my point.
If you lower copyright back to 20 years, then publishers will simply ignore your work for 20 years and steal it when the copyright runs out, publishing it word-for-word and thumbing their nose at the author.

You will eventually reach a point, anyway, where every story has been told & every song has been written.
Hence the current flood of endless remakes coming out of Hollywood.

Exactly how much do you think independent authors make off of works they created 100 years ago?

I haven't seen anyone this butthurt since Inauguration Day.

I hate to break it to you, but copyright has existed since mass publishing was invented.
Before that, those that wrote songs and told stories were essentially beggars, looking for a meal or a few coins for entertaining the public while roving from town to town.

Traveling minstrel shows were no way to get rich…and when it comes to science or medicine, those discoveries were usually just given away, as the only people with time enough to research them were either wealthy already, or had a wealthy patron.

What you're suggesting is the common man, who might be talented, be stripped of yet another path to bettering himself.
Very Jewish.

Without copyright protection, the "Lord of the Rings" movies would not have been in the control of Tolkein's family, and the movies would have been filled with niggers, chinks, "muh stronk womyn" and Jewish moral ambiguity….
…oh, I forgot, FAGGOTS.

Why do you want corporations to take control of the works of individuals?

Maybe you should actually make an argument instead of telling me that I should know that mine is retarded. What does pandering to the lowest common denominator have to do with anything.

This isn't about letting anyone use Mickey for anything they want, it's about letting anyone use anything that hasn't been used by anyone in a long time for something new. If someone wants to make a sequel to a 20 year old game that has been abandoned or passed around for the last decade to companies not doing anything with it, they should be able to.

Putting a carrying cost on copyright will eliminate 98% of the problems caused by it.

You must be very young.
20 years is not at all a long time.

Are you actually retarded? The current Jew run system has all the copyrights owned by, you guessed it, FUCKING JEWS.

Under my system, it would have gone into the public domain and ANYONE could have made things with the property. Movies would have been made 40 years earlier.

Think about all the Dracula movies that exist. That is because Dracula is out of copyright. You could have had a new big budget LoTR movie every two or three years, and HUNDREDS of small ones every year.

It shouldn't be a long time. 20 years is long enough for it to be obvious that it is abandoned. If they want to keep the copyright, they should have to pay for it.

Walt Disney would in no way allow copyright if he knew the literal kikes that control Disney today.

All things created by white men, and now owned by jews for eternity to extract wealth from whites.

Well, I'm writing "Holla Forums, the musical".

He's not saying end copyright altogether. He's saying don't allow it to be extended for infinity so that jews can buy the rights to stuff after the creator is dead and milk it forever. Keep it at 20 years like it always should have been.

I've got "Holla Forums, the mythopeia" going over here.

Hey, dumbass, you know you can allow new people to create new, unique works with the same characters while disallowing plagiarism, right?

How much money do you think they'll if their forced to pay a million fucking dollars every single year just to keep their work out of the hands of Jews?

No they do that because they don't want to take any risks at all and are guaranteed hundreds of millions from the gook markets (jews aren't creative and don't care about it). It's not because every story and song has already been written.

...

FREE THE MOUSE

But this has actually lots of potential. Copyright has not yet ended, but it has enough time to start normalizing the thought on the normies that the mouse is to be freed. The jews will really sweat in order to defend the copyright, clashing with your normalfags who don't really care for politics but love the mouse.
Dig for ridiculous examples of the Mouses copyright being misused.

Take this for example:
archive.fo/Juj3y
techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1407011650.shtml

The comments read:

Oh fuck, they were jews. Ok never mind. I hate them now.

...

oh you mean that media company owned and operated by Jews since the 80s? into the trash you go

I thought Yidney was taken over by kikes closer to Walt's death. Was there a noticeable turning point in movies and quality in the 70s-80s?

When they started New Line Cinema. That's the production company that made The Crying Game and a bunch of other degenerate trash. Dr. Pierce is on YT talking about it.

Entirely untrue.
Under current rules, any original work of any kind is owned by the creator, it is an assumed copyright, you don't even have to go pay to have a copyright put on it.
The only thing a © is good for is to make it easier to prove when you created the work, which can be easily shown anyway if you self-publish or put any of it online.

There is no "corporate boogieman," Jewish or otherwise, that does not have to pay to acquire a copyright.

Now you want people to have to pay to own their own property.

Who's the REAL Jew here?

No.
For 100 years from the time of its initial copyright.
If you are arguing not to increase the copyright time any further, then I'll agree with you.
If you are arguing to decrease it, then I don't agree.

This falls under the heading of "things I'd pay a huge ticket price to see"…

You mean, like fan fiction?
I'm a little fuzzy on the rights to this sort of thing, you are using characters created by someone else, and a theme created by someone else, but the story is yours.

I've never considered doing this, so never researched it. I don't know if you need permission to publish fan fiction or not, but I'm betting you do.

Smells like someone needs a shower.

The people have a right to use their culture after appropriate compensation has been made to the creator of that culture. If the creator wants to keep the rights to that culture, then the people need to be compensated.

People sell their copyrights to Hollywood and Co. They all wind up in the hands of Jews, or they gather dust.

There is no property being taken. Ideas aren't property. Copyright exists so that creators can profit from their creations, not so that their great grandchildren can sit on shit, preventing others from creating anything having to do with it forever. Anyone can go out and make a movie about Frankenstein, but no-one can make a movie about Woody Fucking Woodpecker. You can't even have a painting of him on the front door of your day-care center. It's ridiculous.

Uh, you're depriving them of ability to capitalize off of art? Yes, that's unnatural. The question is balance. 20 years was a good balance because that's basically one whole generation. 80 years is propping up ziowood.

Mickey Mouse's copyright runs out in 2023, and if they try to extend copyright protection beyond the ~100 years it is already set for, they will have a hard time trying to sell the idea that it's to protect the creators, which is what copyrights are for.

Have you geniuses ever considered simply pushing to eliminate any corporation's ability to own copyrights?
This would protect the creator and his ability to will the copyright to his kids, while shutting the Jew out of owning copyrights completely.

You didn't do very well in math class, did you?

I never said this.
The reality is that everything that drops in the public domain can be used by corporations and individuals alike, right?

The Jews have a massive, multi-trillion dollar media machine.
You have nothing.
The Jews will pick up all things in the public domain that are worthwhile & use their machine to reproduce it and market it by the millions.
You will pick it up, self-publish it, and nobody will even know you exist.

Your idea benefits THEM, nobody else.

Sounds like property, to me.

Their culture…that they didn't create.
"They didn't build that" – Barack Obama

Seriously, you sound very much like a commie, right now.

Is that the one picture the cuckchanners were talking about?

At this point, I'm wondering who he thinks will be deciding what the "appropriate compensation" level is going to be?

His arguments are filled with holes.

You didn't do very well in civics class, did you?

Which is why Jews have been agitating to put in my idea, and certainly haven't been working long and hard on making copyright de facto perpetual.

Probably because you are retarded, tbh fam.

Then put in perpetual copyright you fucking hooknosed kike.

Whatever they can get during their copyright term, retard.

You guys don't even have arguments.

That is what we are trying to do actually, remove the leeching kikes off the intellectual properties of the peoples.

Intellectual properties might still be debatable but you understand what I am talking about.

...

I wonder why they don't do that then

he's just a jew, copyrights always work the best for those who have army of lawyers to defend their greedy little interests

Actually copyright laws keep people from capitalizing off of art.
Star wars is slave to Disney faggotry for instance.
Large impacting works have existed for centuries and brought about positive cultural changes and profit freely from people, such as greek myths or the bible.

Why the fuck is this leftist nonsense pinned?

People should have a right to own the own shit. Saying copyright extension is bad is basically saying you should spread the wealth or something. It's commie shit.

Note the copyright defender has no defense for his jewish laws except endless natterings on about muh property and calling people commies

...

...

Copyright is only as good as its ability to encourage useful arts. As a law, it justification is purely utilitarian. No one seriously argues that intellectual property is a human right. Art is only "property" in a metaphorical sense; what the copyright holder owns is a legal monopoly on the publication of his work.

It makes sense because if plagiarists could receive the same compensation for distributing others' work, then there would be no economic incentive to create new works. But with the advent of the Internet, the situation often arises that copyright works against its original purpose. You want actual commies to keep benefitting from it in spite or (((because))) of that fact?

You realize patents have gotten an entire airliner brought down to bring profit to the sole remaining owner right?
Maybe you don't know what evergreening is and how the pharmeceutical industry artificially inflates prices by keeping generics from competing or in many cases, even existing?
They don't protect the little guy from big industries stomping them either, they prevent the little guy from ever earning their worth.
They are weapons weilded by lawers on behalf of corporations and are a poor substitute for actual protections from corporate strongarming.

This.

Copyright is distorted kike cancer.

Copyright was never intended to apply to information.

White men deserve free and wide access to the world's library of information.

The poor "content creators" losing a percentage of their shekels be damned. Charging money for freely available, publicly released information is extortion - you're only paying for the license to not be sued by the government.

Even if your work is really successful, why should your kids and grandkids eternally bum off your success? Ridiculously long copyright terms are a huge contributor to our modern creative and cultural bankruptcy, but faggots still support it because they have some fantasy of striking it big once and living off the profits forever.
Shorter copyright terms gives creators more incentive to make new OC instead of endlessly cashing in on old shit, and ensures that their legacy won't be raped by kike-owned corporations or retarded children.

Because it is infinitely reproducible information. It can be put in the public domain.

IP is a similar scam to usury, where a person gets paid for nothing. It's parasitism.

they already do just that! Copyright is how Jews prevent anyone else from improving or creating anything similar to thing they "own". The copyright industry was almost completely written by Jews and for good reason.

All modern copyright law does is stifle creativity and allows massive corporations to hold control over ideas for lifetimes.

It also makes it EASIER to make OC because you're not restricted from using a lot of the inspirations and references you would normally use out of fear of "ripping something off."

It's such a damaged understanding of the creative process. All art is stolen/shared. The idea of YOU being the sole individual creator and owner of the work in bullshit. The artist played the role of bringing it into existence, he's a collaborator - and in the best art, he's only the conduit for someone else, a deep, spiritual muse who's the real artist.

But gotta get them shekels. Gotta feed that ego.

I can't help but see OPs chart as Sanic.

You don't understand what copyright means. First of all, if you create an icon, it becomes an icon not because of your hand. Think of a meme like Pepe. He's only as important and iconic as he is because of the mass of interpretations - the original has no meaning or relation to what Pepe is now. It doesn't matter if you try to strictly control the production and image of your 'icon', you can't control how people receive it, and it's not your right to do so. Pepe's original 'creator' doesn't own Pepe and he didn't even create Pepe, Pepe existed in our cultural consciousness and shared history for long before. All Matt Furie can claim to have done is channeled that work of others through his hand to make a few set of drawings.

Lose the hubris, you're not the 'creator', you're the conduit for the creation. You've been exposed to true artistic creation and cultural reception better than anyone being on imageboards, so you've no fucking excuse to maintain the distorted kiked up redditor idea of sole creators being entitled to shekels

Copyright law was literally giving you the sole right to copy a work. The main usecase was literature - someone would write a book that'd become a hit, suddenly you'd get 20 other publishers putting out other books with the same name or buying one of your book, then poorly copying it down page by page and reselling the whole thing. You can see why this would be most terrible for the people who wanted to read the work, they wouldn't be able to find the work they wanted. It was to protect consumers first and foremost, just like trademark.

It was certainly not to guarantee that the oh-so-important writer gets his "fair share" of shekels. That was most likely not even considered a part of the conversation. It still isn't. When you want to read >>9356296 you shouldn't have to go through 20 different copies to find the one you're looking for; at the same time, when they want to write it, they don't have to worry at all about not being able to use X idea or Y meme, it's all available in the cultural consciousness and their work itself comes straight from it, not them.

Yes, if they're buying a product. If you're "selling" it digitally, the only thing you're selling is a license that gives you the legal right to access the files, files that are presumably readily found online. In other words, you're paying for the license to not be sued by the government. In other words, it's extortion, no different than when the mafia asks for a "protection fee" when the protection is only from the mafia roughing you up themselves.

No, you shouldn't receive money from extorting people. If that's the only way you can think of to monetize your actions, either think harder, find something else to do, or stop trying to monetize. No, you're not entitled to money just because you made something, that's not how the market works - provide a product or service worth money and people will pay for it. There are ways to do that without resorting to destructive kike scams.

The Jews have put a strangle hold on entities like Netflix due to content licensing.

I want Trump to build a 10-gigabit connection to every household in the country, and let any ISP including start-up ISPs utilize it for free so that regional monopolies are shattered. We could make it mandatory for 1 gigabit to be the speed that's considered to be broadband.

Countries like Japan may have a faster internet connection in some limited sense, but Japan is the size of California.

Copyright/trademark/patents really of any kind are the bane of humanity and only hinders the progress of civilization as a whole.
If we changed it so they only recognize creation and no other recourse of any kind, the world would be improved overnight.
No more fat fucks living in basements sitting on useful patents that can save lives or increase the quality of life.
As gay as apple is their bullshit patents prevent other companies (outside of china which doesn't give a fuck) from adding something like magsafe to their power cables, just little things like that could improve things for everyone.
I find it hilarious that people who argue for the free market think having a safety net like intellectual property rights is perfectly fine.
Companies will get initial profits for the innovations they create, but that's it, no more endless protections from other companies replicating a useful ideas.

This. What really pisses me off is people will tell you it's 'communist' to think information should be free. It's the opposite - the only reason it isn't free now is because of government intervention.

Cease this jewish bullshit.
Companies already make "knockoffs".

That is one of the most jewish ideas I've seen in this entire thread. What you propose will continue the status quo of big jewish companies getting everything they want and more, staying on top perpetually, while all the filthy goyim with smaller businesses get fucked. Oven yourself you fucking jew.

Another jew spotted.

Kill yourself kike.

Another jew spotted.

Exactly. Pepe started as a character that vomited a lot in some shitty furfag comic, and now he's the smug avatar of an ancient god.

You need to adjust your jewdar, friend. Paying for the government to protect your copyright is the most non-Jewish system I can imagine short of one where all the Jews are dead. Authors and other creators get almost all of their money from their works within the first few years of them being published anyways. The royalties generally decline until they are getting a fraction of a cent per unit sold.

Scott Adams commented on this a while back. Once a year he gets a check for something like $3 as royalties off of the Dilbert cartoon. If he wants to make money, he has to keep making the comics.

I can hear your hands rubbing from here.

REMINDER THAT COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE IMMORAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE WHEN THE ORIGINAL CREATORS ARE DEAD OR NO LONGER HOLD THE RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH

Copyright is literally retarding the human race, those races that actually can create anyways.

The payments only get big after twenty years. The authors have already made almost all of their money by then. This is literally a tax on Jews, because Jews are the ones that own all this ancient IP. It also frees up basically everything else for people to make new content with. I'd like to see sequels to some of my favorite SNES games from when I was a kid. I never will under the current system, because some kike or idiot is sitting on the copyright of that game and the characters therein, and will never do anything with it.

Is this what shut down 4chan?

Kill yourself. If I make something by my own hands, it's mine. End of conversation, leave your shitty philosophical excuses at the door. I'm allowed to ventilate someone for trying to steal my physical property, I'll just as quickly ventilate someone for stealing my intellectual property. Go circlejerk about your centrally distributed fantasy utopia on Holla Forums you Marxist filth.

Have you seen the latest Mickey cartoons?

youtube.com/watch?v=iNT8T58G3f4

The music world can get ridiculous. For example it's pretty funny how you can't really listen to zeppelin on YouTube or Spotify yet they copied tons of people's songs back in their heyday without giving them any credit. Like dazed and confused is not their song but you'd never know that from them.

How long do you get copyright on the cure for cancer? 10 years, 15, 20? how about 120? 1200? 12000? Perpifinity?

I'm open to a reasonable period of copyright, but this creeping horror bullshit has to stop.

There's no such thing as "intellectual property," kike. Your petty wordplay has no hold here. Neither does your projection. Pull your head out of the gutter and do something of real value for once.

So you're saying it was real in your mind, and you get to kill anyone who disagrees.

A cure for cancer is an invention, it's covered by patent, not copyright. You don't need any longer than 10 years to turn a good enough profit to justify providing the invention's public disclosure - while still being short enough to not severely limit the invention's benefits to the public as a public industry.

Patents do not apply to art. The only reason for copyright is to protect consumers from fraudulent knockoffs.

Nice job not even reading my post. Do you seriously think that "people should have the right to own their own shit" isn't a defence? You are literally a socialist if you don't think so. Not in a namecalling sense, but in yes, a literal sense.

Not an argument, leftist Kike.

I think these two prove my points that only leftists and commies are against this type of shit. Look at the terminology they use.

Holla Forums faggot here, if you want a tip on how to damage the copyright system take a look at the GNU GPL.
Kikes absolutely despise it for three reasons: it encourages sharing and remixing without royalty fees, it adds mandatory "pay it forward" conditions so everyone else gets the same thing for free, and the authority to demand those first two is a side effect of copyright law. Every time they push for term extensions, the cancer they want to destroy gets an equal amount stronger.

They must extend for at least some years after the authors death to keep media companies from having competition whacked though.

...

See:

Communism is having the state to intervene on the free market to redistribute everything between everyone equally. Attacking copyright is removing state intervention to the free market.

Keeping copyright shit is just croney kike capitalism, they've created entire industries out of lobbying the government and twisting the law to benefit themselves at the expense of the people. You're defending extortion, it's as simple as that. It might be financially benefit you for your 'ideas' to be real in your mind, but it's a cancer on society. If you want money so badly, then produce something with real value.

So how do we get Trump to retroactively take it down by a twenty-ish years, to fuck with the kikes behind media companies?

Imagine a world where the Looney Toons, Mickey and friends, the entire Justice League, X-Men and Avangers become popular domain
Imagine the butthurt of the companies who own those IPs
Imagine the salt when they can't legally take down right wing fan fics with those characters
Imagine the luls when they try to come up with new IPs to milk Shekkels outta the goyim and the fail misserably cause kikes are all talentless hacks

Let's make this happen Holla Forums
Let's meme this into reality

ITT
vs
why are jews out in such force?

END COPYRIGHT NOW

Read and share this:
levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

Copyright retards society.

Your shit tier ad hominems demonstrate more clearly the idiocy of your position than I ever could. Thanks for saving me the work.

Richard Stallman is an obnoxious far left Jew, hardly an example for Holla Forumsacks to follow. The copyright system may be broken, but copyleft *is* socialism. The GPL is a gigantic mess of legalese; not even the lawyers really understand what it says, but it does ensure that companies who want to deal with GPL code have to give IP lawyers (i.e., the enemy) their business.

If you want software to be free, rather, just give it away. License it under MIT/ISC/2-clause BSD, that is enough to keep another party from claiming copyright and locking it away.

Well I'm writing '"Holla Forums, the omnibus" over here.

If you work a farm for 50 years and pass it on to your kids, is there a time limit after which they are required by law to allow anyone onto it to do whatever they want with it?

Yep. Tough shit. Anyone who makes anything is entitled to their work and to be compensated for it under their own terms, be it a physical object or something entirely perceived.

What, was your OC rejected from the next Kingdom Hearts game?

...

...

What a lot of anons (kikes I presume) seem to be ignoring is that in most cases, content creators don't own much of their own work anymore anyway. The large corporations do. The music and film industries are prime examples. The only thing fighting major record labels and major film studios are indie artists who very rarely make it far, and if they do, are generally sucked up by corporations so that those corporations can make money off of any future work they make. The bottom line is that the kikes control the entertainment industry. I'm all for rolling back copyright (even as a content creator myself), but if the goal is to fix the problem, this is only step one.

I'll take your word for it, I constantantly get those two assbackwards. Point still being you really only need a fair amount of time to turn a profit, that's reasonable. What's fair is debatable, a lot of people are saying the current length is not fair.

Yeah, if they don't pay their taxes they lose it. Should be the same with copyright. These kikes not only suppress our culture's growth, but they use OUR tax dollars to do it.

But you are very happy about that, aren't you, Schlomo?

Holy fuck how much more could you intentionally skew the law? The tax is in the form of the proceeds, not the fucking land itself. If an IP is still generating money, you tax the money as income. How is this difficult?

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know that people pay taxes on the value of their property every year?

That's just it. As it stands (using your farm analogy), it's only "working a farm" that you leased from a kike who made you sign an agreement that he gets 80% of your yield. After that you have to pay for distribution, inspections, labor, etc out of pocket. By the end you're making 0.5% of what you can farm. Welcome to the entertainment industry, where copyright is king.

Yes, but they pay in money. Not the land itself. The IP is the idea itself. Losing the rights is the same as losing a non-intellectual object.

Then fix the system and string up the kikes, but don't tell people that they aren't entitled to their own legacy.

And how do you propose to do that? You have to wound the beast before you'll be able to put it down. Rolling back copyright to 20 years would hurt the kikes a thousand fold more than it would hurt content creators in the current climate. Maybe copyright laws worked wonderfully when the commercial landscape wasn't ruled by kikes and large corporations, but that's the situation we're in now, so I think rolling back copyright to 20 years is a good first step toward making entertainment great again.

It has never been easier to market what you're selling due to the internet and the prevalence of mass media. Marketing companies are all over the place, and their services aren't that expensive either. Toiling away in obscurity is just simply not a thing anymore.

I'll assume this is in good faith.

First, Disney does *not* do right by its mascot. Others have argued this by way of their owners being kikey brainwashey assholes, but it is of note that Disney is so anal about copyright that they have sued daycares over it. Arguments against Disney go far beyond the culture war: Disney is egregiously evil about this, and it is easy to argue against them to people outside of Holla Forums.

Second, an argument by cultural principles goes as follows: over time, Mickey Mouse has become an icon of something beyond Disney; that is, Mickey Mouse is an icon of materialism and consumerism made cute for small children. He is not just a "Disney Character" anymore; rather, given the sheer length of time he's been in American Culture, he has become something beyond Disney: he is symbolic of an idea, and it is wrong to give ownership of such a powerful symbol to one company.

Third, an argument by economic principles follows: the development of Mickey Mouse is deserving of some money. The amount of money a person gets for their idea should be proportional to its impact. This is why we have copyrights; it allows a person to get money based on the impact of their idea. If we let copyrights stand for too long, the person gets way too much money, and it inhibits the spread of the useful idea. If we don't let copyrights stand long enough, the person doesn't get paid a fair amount, and that inhibits the development/sharing of new, useful ideas (because people don't want to develop them, because they don't get paid for it). The fact that the people currently making money off Mickey Mouse are globalist kikes who didn't think of him themselves is a good sign that we are erring on the side of copyright terms being too long.

Last, an argument from our self interest follows: although everyone here believes a lot of different things (Nazis and Libertarians disagree on lots), everybody here is united in this: the Rothschilds are bad, there is a global power structure they control, and dismantling that is good. The media is a major node in that power structure: it's how they disseminate ideas down the power structure to the common man, and repress ideas coming from the common man. This gives us a lot of new tools to destroy the media.

Just imagine: political cartoons with Mickey Mouse sucking Rothschild's dick. Everywhere. No legal penalty for it.

Glorious.

...

What's an example of that happening? Genuinely curious. Fanfiction in general is like finding an occasional small gem in an endless ocean of shit. Abominations like "My Immortal" exist and neither JK Rowling nor Warner Bros. seems interested in having it removed from the Internet. That's easily worse than a hypothetical story about Captain America and the Punisher hunting down Chinese or Israeli spies.

cannon = precedent for new stories, think a few steps ahead you fuckwit

there goes the kike again…

Oven yourself. You can't steal ideas.

You can't steal ideas.

Businesses require work to keep turning a profit. Unlike bullshit "intellectual property" where no work is required because of your monopoly, businesses can't simply be given to people as a golden goose.

You can't own an idea. Simple as that.

Have an argument anytime, pal. We are cognizant creatures. If the idea is valuable and somebody made it, it's worth protecting their right to it.

So you're a nigger and a Jew. You get to sit in the back of the oven.

And so do IPs. Absolute barest minimum there is work required to rerelease an IP's older works. There's work required to produce anything new for an IP. An IP with no work going on behind it is an IP that's not generating any money. What the fuck do you think an IP is, a literal money-printing machine that requires no upkeep, paper, ink, or electricity?

Yes you can, dumbass. It's called a design. Or do you think blueprints are valuable for the paper they were printed on?

Not an argument.

No, they don't. Not in the age of the internet. Copying is done on someone else's dime. It doesn't cost "content creators" a cent for someone to pirate their work, and yet idiots like you argue that it is somehow a right that they be paid for something that cost them nothing at all.

No, there isn't. You realize this isn't 1970 anymore, right?

Work, maybe, but work of the person(s) demanding money? No.

The only costs of "intellectual property" is in hiring lawyers to enforce your monopoly and extort people with the force of the state.

Guess diversity is our strength and niggers and Jews are true Americans then, retard. Guess handing Juan a license makes him a good driver. Guess that since the government says I can't own slaves it must not be possible.

You cannot own an idea. This is a retarded and Jewish concept. How far does it extend? Where is the logical stopping ground? There is no logical reason, using your retardation, that I can't "own" a business strategy, a theology, a political concept, or a fucking language. How can you own something that can't be stolen?

It's also worth noting that property only existed within the realm of the state. In your libertarian "state of nature" your "property" is only what you can defend with your bare hands. Being able to "own" anything more than that rests on the state using its monopoly on force to beat people (or threaten to) unless they come to an agreement with you over the use of the property. There is no natural state where you inherently deserve something that you cannot defend yourself; good fucking luck threatening everyone who dares to "steal" your ideas.

Feel free to explain how ideas can be stolen. I'll wait.

You can't defend your points. I win.

In my opinion, intelectual property should not have owners. That is because ideas don't impact the world.
And before you harp on with some moralfaggotry, read on:

a) A man has an idea. It's a good/bad idea.
He goes to sleep, forgets about it, and wakes up the next day. The world is still the same.
b) A man has an idea. He writes it down, and in the morning builds something with it. That something he built changed the world, not the idea.
c) A man has an idea. He makes something with it. That something has an impact in the world. Some folks like the impact and want more. They ask for the idea and build something of their own with it. Each having an impact. Not the ideas, the things they built with them.
d) A man has an idea. He can't build it, so he shares it with others. Only a few have the resources to build it. The one's who only had the idea (first-hand or second-hand) don't do anything and thus, don't impact the world.
The few that have such resources produce an impact in the world. Not with the idea itself, but with what they built.

The common theme here is that ideas don't necessarily change the world. It's what we do with them.
A famous poet from my country had a nice saying about this:

You can't let people hoard ideas. Without them, noone will do anything with them. But you can't claim rights over something someone built based on your idea. They built it themselves when you couldn't. Or they built it better. A culture that protects copyright is a culture that strives for the "just enough". It doesn't matter if you build a shoddy product, you're the only one that can build it! Copyright IS monopolization. Not of ideas, but from what you can build from said ideas. The things that actually matter.

The other counter argument is bootlegs.
Who the fuck is gonna buy those? Why do you think that's gonna have any impact at all?
Right here, on american soil, half a dozen artists tried last year to revive the old black&white cartoons where Mickey was his old self, not the initialized version we have.
They all got sued and one lost his job (personal friend). Because someone had an idea once, built all it could with it and can't be arsed to either build better or let others build for them.
These people were starting to make 5 digits a month with simple animations. They had fans and folks who wanted more. They had an impact. A positive one.
Bootlegs have no impact. Only white trash and niggers buy bootlegs. They don't care about culture.
Disney has an idea. For the last 30 years, everything they did with that idea had a negative impact on the world.

That's where Copyright brought us: you can't improve it, you don't need to improve it and it sure as hell gonna keep being shit. Why? Because they own it. Fuck you.

Patents have a short life than copy rightr, like 20 years or something.

One of my arguments is that a song has longer copy right protection than the cure for cancer which humanity has spent probably over 100 billion dollars to cure.

...

It's worth noting that many of our greatest works are built on "stolen" ideas. Disney, the classic example, built its empire on reinterpreted European folk stories. In fact, culture might only thrive in an atmosphere of "idea theft" wherein things are collectively improved. A great example of this is the Greek mythos which was a collective effort over many centuries by countless numbers of Greeks.

Also, to add a more practical example to this:

I work in a factory. Automation engineer.
To control machines, we use a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller).
Right now, there's 15 diferent brands and models of PLC's on our factory.
Each have their own language, each have their own software and fuck me, they even have a diferent cable to connect to the computer too.

You know why? Copyright. Every protocol, every code instruction, even the fucking cables themselves have a fat coypright sign next to them. And for what. To sell software that costs 1500$? Cables that go for 150$ each?
Each PLC already costs 400$, a justified price for the ammount of electronic crap in them.
That's where they make most of their money. We might buy one cable and one software license (adding up to 1650$) but a normal assembly line will have a minimum of 10 PLC's. That's 4000$ in hardware sales.
Copyright in this case is a sweet deal to the seller. They get to bundle all this crap in a fat pricetag and you can't do shit about it.

But here's the kicker: a few years ago USB happened. A few more years, and someone decided to try and put it on PLC's too. You know, a format that has no copyright, cables are common (20$ a pop) and works with a crap ton of other devices with no hassle.
Guess what, shit got so popular every other manufacture had to drop their special snowflake cables and protocols and start including USB.
But it gets better: with the "Internet of Things" coming, a lot of them decided to cut the bullshit and slap ethernet ports on every PLC.
Because they know they lost the Copyright law. The moment one of those fuckers tries to re-invent the ethernet port into their own "Exclusive-enchanced-comunications-port", they won't sell jackshit.

All it took was one company adopting something that was universal and standardizing it for the industry.
Now there's even a German company putting out a "Universal language for PLC's" to replace all the other 80 diferent ways of programming PLC's. Because I sure as shit ain't up to learn a new coding syntax everytime I get a new box on my hands.

Every single fucking time we decided "well, it's their product, they can do wathever they want" all we're doing is removing competition, establishing virtual monopolies and killing standardization.

And standardization is important. It is the basis of inovation. If everytime I wanted to to improve the Wheel I had to re-invent it, we'd get 20 diferent wheels at the end of the day because noone is working with a common base.
Instead, we all decide "fuck it, we already invented the wheel, let's improve it".
Maybe I put spikes in it to climb up walls, maybe another fella puts chains for the snow.
Then we notice "Oh fuck, we're using the same base: the wheel, right? We can put chains AND spikes and climb snow walls now!"

I still haven't seen a good argument to keep copyright besides money. If you wanna get rich, build shit and sell it. Don't think about it.

Exactly. The sharing of ideas is massively important to the expansion and improvement of the same ideas.

Imagine there's a common idea that everyone has (Greek gods). Then everyone goes home, thinks up on their idea and improves it.
They're not improving the base idea (the Myths). They're improving their own version of the idea. So you end up with lots of tiny good things that either don't fit, don't relate to each other or outright don't work together.
Given enough time and "improvements", we'll end up with things so widely different from each other that they no longer resemble the original idea or one another.

This might be a good thing, because it breeds new shit over time. But imagine all that effort put into improving a single thing. Making it grand, beautiful and majestic.

Because that's how science used to be made. People all around the world took a common concept home, thought about it and then improved it/shared their findings. The core would change to suit the new data and folks would go home again with a new core.
I'm talking about a million people thinking up the same problem. When was the last time "intellectual property" had a million people working for the same goal?
Never. It never had. Because for "intellectual property" to exist, you need to say "Mine. It's mine." And if it's yours, you're not gonna share it without getting something in return. You want money. You want revenue. You no longer want it to grow, you want it to generate a profit.

Copyright is money. Not improvement, not advancement. Money and stagnation. Nothing generates better profits than a stagnant idea.
Take a damn good look at what comes out of Hollywood. It's stagnated and it's profitable.
Take a damn good look at the scientific community. At books, comics, anime, video games. It's all stagnating. And it's all increasingly profitable.
The Jew wants it stagnated. Stagnated fields are controllable. They're rent-able.

Come to think about it, the only thing that hasn't stagnated yet are memes themselves. They keep evolving and improving and we keep making more everyday. That's why they're not profitable. You can't bank on something that's gonna be outdated in a couple months. Reddit got a hold of rage comics for instance. They repeated the same jokes ad nauseum, never made anything better and what happened? Rage Comic t-shirts. Rage Comic figurines. Rage Comic music videos. Rage Comic movies.
Rage Comics merchandise.

I FUCKING HATE REDDIT

Copyright should only last for as long as the creator lives.

you're not getting the right to an idea, but the right to copy an idea, replicate it, and alter it. It's on its fucking name. Getting the right to an idea would be like prohibiting people from even thinking about it.

The farm comparizon is stupid. Yes, you would have the right to your fucking farm, but you don't have the right to force other people to not farm on their own lands, just because it wouldn't be profitable for you to have a farm.

Copyright, as it is implemented, must be one of the most heinous ideas ever made. Who could Imagine a contract that anyone can make with the government to limit the actions of other people based on arbitrary images or toughts, and the other interested parties not having any kind of say.

Copyright is there not for you to become rich, and live forever out of your lucky streak of ingenuity. Copyright should be there to give a small incentive to people to make up new stuff. Not to put shackles on ideas, not to control the populace imagery.

The mere fact that mickey mouse is not part of the public domain is a travesty.

To a large extent I think innovation and improvement is actually opposed to economic stability and wellbeing — the phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention" springs to mind. It's been on my mind lately with all the whining that the construction and agricultural industries are suffering a "labor shortage" because of meanie Trump; I can't help thinking "Doesn't that give a huge incentive for people to develop new technology and solutions?"

Hell, there's a solid argument that Europe only advanced because of labor shortages, in the form of the Black Plague. It killed one third of Europe's population, and suddenly all the cheap serfs didn't exist anymore and the remainder had to actually be paid decent shit, which allowed them to reinvest and develop such a thing as a middle class. Contrast this with India and China which had rough technological parity up to that time but which had huge numbers of people willing to work for shit and had absolutely no reason to develop anything close to a middle class.

This is why I honestly don't get the argument that patents and copyrights are necessary for innovation, when they do precisely the opposite. Innovation is sparked by necessity, and patents and copyrights remove that necessity, and always have. Look at the entire attitude of the creative industry nowadays. Every two-bit writer and artist wants to "make it big" by striking on a profitable idea once in their lives, copyright it to make sure no one else can make money off it, and then sit on their asses the rest of their lives reaping in money and not creating anything else. Look at the patent industry which focuses on patenting things that aren't even feasible or implementable simply so they can sue people, collect royalties, and drive competitors out of business with vague patent lawsuits that they can't afford. It doesn't drive innovation: it stifles innovation and always has. It turns the motive away from creating things people actually want and instead to collecting royalties and fees. Why give a shit about actually developing your product to make it more desirable when you know there's no competition and that you'll make money regardless of how shitty whatever you put out is?

Story?

Someone's trying. Free for Kindle Unlimited or just $1. It's just the limited translation available elsewhere, but its a decent ebook conversion if that's your thing.

amazon.com/Two-Centuries-Together-Russo-Jewish-History-ebook/dp/B01MT4YQQ9/

But things do get memory-holed all the time. A publisher will gain control of the copyright for many titles. Over time smaller publishers get acquired by even larger publishers until a huge collection of works is controlled by only a (((few))). Some works get jewwashed and re-released in subsequent editions or never see the light of day again.

Wait. You think white people make money off copyright instead of it being a Jew control-scheme?