Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

floridawhiteguy t1_jeaada2 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in TIL a special law in the UK was created to ensure that the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital will forever be able to collect royalties from stage performances, audiobooks, book releases, etc. of Peter Pan in the UK. This is the only work with an 'exception' to copyright laws. by [deleted]

Which is extraordinarily bad law.

Carving out exceptions for favoritism violates the spirit and intent of the law: specifically, an even playing field.

But IMHO it's no surprise that a Constitutional Monarchy elected (pun intended) to illegally bypass prior constitutional law in order to favor a tiny minority. Par for the course in UK history and politics: Fuck the public good to serve an entitlement which should have died off centuries ago.

−32

ElCactosa t1_jeacewc wrote

The entitlement of a children's hospital?

Your sentiment on this is unbelievably baffling.

Can you explain how the monarchy (who had nothing to do with the amendment to the act) or the Prime Minister who proposed it had anything to gain by suggesting the changes?

33

tweda4 t1_jeaeaqk wrote

"what? The government is supporting a children's hospital with a patent to a children's story!? ARGH DAMN YOU BIG GOVERNMENT! WHEN WILL YOUR TYRANNY END?!" /s

shit man, I hope you missed an /s in your comment lol. The spirit of the law is to be Just (something that laws so often fail to be), and you know what, I consider this to be a pretty Just result.

13

GalacticNexus t1_jeank16 wrote

Guaranteeing permanent income for a children's hospital is absolutely in the public good.

11

Afinkawan t1_jeb7pqe wrote

You're really triggered by the thought of sick children getting hospital care.

7

AngelSucked t1_jeb140m wrote

"Carving out exceptions for favoritism violates the spirit and intent of the law"

Imagine saying this about Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, and thinking you are right.

Oh brother.

4