Copyright is supposed to reward content creators for creating something. The thing is, though, that creation springs from inspiration... and works lingering on for decades under copyright prevent new ideas inspired by older ones from becoming available.
It's "stealing" when copyright are extended retroactively: I'm not aware of any other form of law in which it's possible to enact things retroactively... certainly not criminal law.
Because you can still buy them. So it's not in any way "stealing" rights from the public.
It's "stealing" when copyright are extended retroactively: I'm not aware of any other form of law in which it's possible to enact things retroactively... certainly not criminal law.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
- 03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
2004 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
- 04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
1115 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
- 04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
1080 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
- 04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
1022 Views
That's not the point, though.
- 05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
1106 Views
????
- 05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
1059 Views
Re: ????
- 05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
1103 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
- 05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
1068 Views
I don't get it.
- 04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
1369 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
- 04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
1151 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
- 04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
1116 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
- 04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
624 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
- 04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
1044 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
487 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
- 04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
1142 Views
Answering you specifically
- 05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
1063 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
- 04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
1123 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
1017 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
1018 Views
That is a very confusing article.
- 04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
1182 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
- 04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
1113 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
- 05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
1048 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
469 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
- 05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
1198 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
- 06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
507 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
- 06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
1034 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
- 06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
575 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
- 06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
1077 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
1213 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
1101 Views
Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
1217 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
995 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
- 06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
1305 Views