THIS IS…
HOLY SHIT KROMO YOU HAVE HAD SOME GOLD OVER TOPICS BUT THIS
THIS
101 GANGBANGS HOLY SHIT
:lovin: you too buddy.
But WHY SHOULDN’T I BE ABLE TO OWN IT??? That’s it. That’s my whole argument, so there!
The current system says that your beliefs about intellectual property ownership rights are wrong. (I.e. They’re supposed to expire.) The controversy is that media conglomerates use their incredible money and power to force changes in the law purely for their own benefit and to the detriment of the people whom the law was put into place to protect in the first place.
The only times I’ve ever–EVER–seen someone fail because intellectual properties were held were that one failure from Europe who tried to write a sequel to Catcher in the Rye and that one dude who tried to write a sequel to Don Quixote but that one was hundreds of years ago in Spain I think.
They were both failures who weren’t original so fuck them. They shouldn’t be allowed to profit on someone else’s work.
^You’re right. No one should ever be allowed to profit or benefit from someone else’s work.
Kiss your advancement of Science goodbye you stupid shit.
Are you a huntsman raz0r?
Are you a flintknapper?
Have you skinned, dressed, and made your own clothes out of animals?
Have you also built your own housing, and set up the power and everything else in your home?
I know several people who have done all of the above and much more, including those “unevolved” savages you look down upon(who met their needs without electricity or any of the things you think makes someone or their culture evolved). They know more about being self made than you ever will.
Nice way of trying to change my meaning of art and apply it to science! Totally didn’t change the meaning or anything.
I AM CONFUSE.
It’s no longer that person’s work if it’s bought or they paid their salary to create it and you know it. You cannot be that naive.
Under current law, PURELY IN THE LEGAL SENSE, ownership can be signed away to a corporation and the property is now considered to be owned by that corporation, usually without regard to the circumstances of the signing. You are in favor of this.
Under current law, PURELY IN THE LEGAL SENSE, such exclusive ownership rights are considered temporary, meaning that once a certain length of time elapses, the rights are considered to be legally held by everybody. You are against this.
Again: CONFUSE.
Also, you are against people profiting off a creation for which they did none of the creating, unless those people happen to be a corporation working the system in order to cling to that creation well after its temporary rights have expired. AGAIN: CONFUSE.
Excuse me? scientific inventions aren’t a person’s work? They shouldn’t be entitled to their work and profits in perpetuity because it’s Science and not Art? Fuck you you fucking freeloader, you want the benefits of science invent your own shite.
Not if it’s extended, which it has been. So shut up.
How does it get extended?
Voted by our Congress, i imagine. I own no patents.
And why do they do that?
Zzzzz
Interesting line of thought good, though I must say I’m impressed seeing Mr. raz0r, the smartest, most talented, most self made man in the world defending artists(a group of people he said we “evolved away from” and that are not needed in today’s world.) Very interesting.
Also interesting is the hard line drawn between Science and Art, as if there was never any aesthetic merit in scientific inventions. Yet even something like the atomic bomb has a strong aesthetic to it that goes beyond making things “go boom”. 
But it’s raz0r, he knows everything.
EDIT: And maybe even aesthetic isn’t sufficient enough as a term. Many(hell I’d say damn near all) scientific inventions are downright artistic, from the mechanisms they operate on, to the thought process that lead to their creation. Yet science is not art,
I know, man, there’s so much bullshit with the way these mass media empires interact with our lawmakers that the smell is strong enough to knock anybody out cold.
This thread:
[media=youtube]4DI5Z_6gWVY[/media]
I saw that your question got overlooked, so I’ll do my best to answer it. My understanding of public domain would mean that you are able to use the character (or any part thereof, such as their appearance, voice, whatever) in any way you want to.
This might sound little strange, so let me provide an example: I want to start a boat-building company specifically for the livestock market, and I’m looking for a name to use. Because I have a weird sense of humour, I decide to go with the name ‘Moses Boats’. Now, should the Roman Catholic Church be able to sue me for using the name Moses (I know, the church doesn’t hold copyright over the bible, but pretend that they do because I can’t think of a better example ATM)? Most people would say no, because the very idea of Moses and the stories surrounding him are so well-known that they form a part of our culture (even if you’re not christian).
Now let’s go back to the example in your question: should a company be able to use Mickey Mouse in advertising? Keeping in mind that copyright holds for the life of the author (let’s say 50 years) plus an additional time period that companies lobby to keep having expanded (IIRC this is about 70 years at the mo). So if a business wants to be able to use Mickey Mouse’s picture on their signs 120 years after he was invented, why should they be allowed to? We can phrase the problem as a simple dilemma: Either Mickey Mouse is a significant part of ‘our’ culture, or he is not. If he is a significant part of our culture, then anyone should be able to use him, or you are essentially allowing a company to own our cultural expression. If he is not a significant part of ‘our’ culture, then he is essentially worthless after 120 years, and so corporations have no right to protect their profits from the idea, because there are none to be had. Either way, everyone should be able to use him after a suitable period of time.
(EDIT: The main portion of debate around public domain works seems to revolve around two issues as far as I can tell. The first is how long the periods of copyright should last in certain situations and for certain types of property, and the second is about what constitutes ‘fair use’ when a property is still under copyright.)
I hope that made sense, keeping in mind that I’m not a patent lawyer, so I could be off - the above is just my understanding.
On a completely separate note, how would y’all feel if the laws were changed to essentially eliminate the copyright period after the death of the author, but the copyright holder can retain the rights so long as they ‘update the property’ every x years? That way, you could still stop people from using Superman when there’s another movie just around the corner, but it doesn’t mean that we’ll never see an animated talking mouse again.
It could be a rubbish idea, but it’s a 45-degree day here and I’m too lazy to think it right through myself.