arctander t1_ixlj6s2 wrote
Reply to comment by MattsAwesomeStuff in Dogma (1999) Full Film in 1080p [Archive.org] by MandomRix
This is an eloquent take on the fourth test of fair use under US Copyright law, namely "Effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under this economic interpretation Disney's Song of the South ought to be available, and it is. Disney has refused to re-release this film and it remains under copyright until 2041.
The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act was clearly overreaching and should be repealed, but there's no political will to do so. My question was really about the apparent impunity under which IA operates.
I appreciate the good conversation, thank you.
ramilehti t1_ixlq5pn wrote
The author's life + 75 years is an absurdly long time period. It is solely used by corporations to hoard culture. To milk every last cent out of them.
Author's life + 20 years would be acceptable in my opinion. That would ensure that the author's offspring are adults and can take care of themselves. If the copyright is owned by a corporation then 20 years.
But I agree the corporations that own most of the culture there is would never allow this. So it must be done against their will.
MattsAwesomeStuff t1_ixm4d8y wrote
> Author's life + 20 years would be acceptable in my opinion. That would ensure that the author's offspring are adults and can take care of themselves.
But that's not the purpose of copyrights.
The purpose is to encourage the creation of creative works for society.
You cannot encourage new creative works from a corpse.
You have to think "At what point does the lack of a copyright future, prevent this person from creating it in the first place?"
And the answer is probably 5-10 years. You've milked it all but dry after 5-10 years.
How much money does a movie make 5-10 years after it's published? A trickle. Not enough for a studio to say "Well if it's only 5 years, we're not making the movie in the first place."
Musicians wouldn't retire or stop making albums (or good albums) so readily if they can't rely on evergreen sales of stuff they did 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Etc.
The purpose isn't "Your children should keep earning money from this."
Once upon a time there were no copyrights at all. You created something because you wanted to create it. People still made stuff.
MattsAwesomeStuff t1_ixm5xfh wrote
> This is an eloquent take on the fourth test of fair use under US Copyright law, namely "Effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under this economic interpretation Disney's Song of the South ought to be available, and it is. Disney has refused to re-release this film and it remains under copyright until 2041.
Indeed, and that interpretation has controversy.
It's not that the copyright is invalid, but, with the goal of maintaining public access to creative works, it's not hard to make a case that you have not harmed the market for the good, if they intend not to sell it.
A more peculiar case is, remember in the 90s when Disney would stagger the release of their movies on VHS? If you didn't buy it, it might not be available for another 5 years or whatnot. How's copyright supposed to handle that?
The same way copyright handles everything: Whoever spends the most on lawyers wins :p
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments