HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

No, that's not it. The reason is that Disney lobbied to have the copyright term extended to prevent Mickey Mouse entering the public domain. This is despite that Disney was essentially built on public domain works.

This isn't how copyright was meant to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#S...

CGP Grey on copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

Just like Disney did with Alice in Wonderland, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

"And now you, dear filmmaker, want to come along and want to make your own version of Star Wars: A New Hope? For shame! That's like stealing food right out of George Lucas' mouth."

⬐ georgeecollins

Good point about Disney, they shouldn't be allowed to control characters forever. But two wrongs don't make a right. Nintendo and Valve made recent pieces of intellectual property that they should be allowed to own for a reasonable period of time.

⬐ smegger001

I am just waiting for Disney to buy the rights to Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" and try to claim they own the monomyth and all derivative stories are violating their copyright.

⬐ hcknwscommenter

Your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. It is perfectly acceptable to copy the basic "idea" of a story. You just can't copy or make derivative works of Star Wars or Alice in Wonderland themselves, but you can copy all the themes and ideas thereof.

⬐ shawn

The argument is that it's harmful for society to restrict artists from remixing other people's work. And when you put it that way, how could it be otherwise? We'll have to agree to disagree that it'd cause problems for people to be able to tell a Darth Vader story.

⬐ hcknwscommenter

It causes problems because then there is no profit incentive and then there goes the entire content creation industry.

You can remix themes and ideas all you want. Just don't call it Darth Vader and profit off other people's investment in that specific expression of the space opera.

CGP Grey also did a fantastic video on the history of copyright and Disney's constant involvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

⬐ cup-of-tea

CGP Grey's is short and easy to digest for most people, I imagine. What really made me think about copyrights, patentds and trademarks is Richard Stallman's excellent talk called Copyright vs Community. Many recordings can be found online. I wonder if anyone might recommend what the best recording of this is? It's also about two hours long when he gives it, I wonder if there is a shorter version?

Copyright is broken.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

The so-called "myths" the author highlights are more like fallacies than actual facts. He briefly touches some points related to copyright and claims that that's all there is to it.

> Myth #5. Artists Feel Restricted by Copyright

Remixing works under copyright means you need the author's permission to do so, usually by paying royalties. This would be fine if copyrights ended at some point. Currently, in the US, they last way past the death of the author.

> Myth #4. Copyright Harms the Public Domain

He mentions The Little Prince as if all works are really popular. There are tons of works that are not popular, their authors don't even care about them anymore or are dead or companies have gone bankrupt, and remain under copyright. This makes it illegal for people to make copies and keep these works alive. Access to such usually also requires payment and what's affordable for some may not be so affordable for others.

> Myth #3. Copyright is an Attack on Artistic Freedom

He only mentions the freedom of the original author. Indeed, their freedom is not touched. Everybody else is hurt, though. Nobody else can express their artistic freedom on works under copyright without permission (which usually means paying royalties, but can also be impossible if the author doesn't approve the derived work).

> Myth #2. Copyright Costs Consumers

Nobody argues that authors need to be compensated for their work. How much is "fair" is a whole different story. Should they keep being compensated 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, forever?

> Myth #1. Copyright only helps Corporations

Copyright, in general, is a good thing. Perpetual copyright is not. Copyright that extends beyond the life of the original author is not. After some time, only corporations will benefit, since their heirs will live much beyond the original authors and will profit on someone else's work.

EDIT: Here's a nice video on why eternal copyright is bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

⬐ maxharris

but can also be impossible if the author doesn't approve the derived work

But the right to refuse derived work is just as essential to justice as the right to royalties on creative work. For example, Kurt Vonnegut had (and his estate has) the moral right to say "no!" to a neo-Nazi that wants to "remix" Harrison Bergeron into a new story promoting racism.

⬐ andersonvom

Which is why the author is granted a period of time in which they are the ones controlling/exploiting/restricting/etc their work. What I argue for is that this should not be forever. In fact, I would argue that the current generation should be free to derive work from works of their generation too, and not be restricted to "things from the past".

Whether the derived work is bad or good is beyond this conversation as one could argue is original work is not good/bad enough.

⬐ CuriousSkeptic

Just to counter your #2

I don't think the compensation argument is a good one. First of all its wielded as if work somehow is valuable in it self and thus warrants "compensation". Which cannot be true, there are many things not worth doing, and even some things better not done at all. In reality though not even copyright ensures any work is compensated. Which, even further makes the connection between copyright and creative work incentives weak.

As others in this thread has pointed out, there are other motivations than monetary. So it's not even given that "compensation" is needed at all (whatever we mean by "needed")

But even if we deem compensation required, what is to say that a free market would fail to provide compensation? As a developer most of the code I produce is paid for buy clients with no specific dependency on copyright. What makes other creative industries different?

So not only do I question your #2, even #1 is suspect in my mind. I don't believe copyright in general is a good thing, and in my mind the burden of proof that it is lies on those promoting it.

⬐ andersonvom

When I say compensation I'm not restricting it to "monetary compensation". In this sense, the years of "monopoly" over someone's work to benefit from it as they see fit is the actual compensation I was referring to.

As a developer, most likely your clients hold the copyright to the code you write, especially if this is not explicit in any other way. And even if you go one step further, the entire free software movement is based on copyright: the existence of copyright is what guarantees software remains free once published. Otherwise, people could just fork the code and close the source again.

To your last point, given that copyright already exists, is in place, and lasts for way too long, I believe it's the other way around: the burden of the proof lies on whoever wants to change it.

It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain.

Think:

A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...)

Pride and Prejudice with Zombies

That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns.

A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself really well to live theater, I suggest seeing it!)

West Side Story (inspired by Romeo and Juliet)

Clueless (based on Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma)

The anime/manga Lupin III was inspired by the French gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, created by Maurice Leblanc. Japan didn't enforce copyright at the time of its creation but the Leblanc estate got mad once Lupin started being sold in North America. Some foreign releases changed his name as a result. In 2012, Leblanc's original Arsène Lupin entered the public domain in France

See this video for a different perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

Also read the copyright clause in the Constitution!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is the goal and purpose of copyright, as written by the founding fathers, not "financially benefit" especially not forever.

⬐ will_brown

Your post is very helpful because of the examples.

Lets take the Disney example. Lets assume the non-disney original Snow White had a Copyright and was not in the public domain. That does not mean Disney's version violates the copyright, it is very likely there was enough change in Disney's version from the original that Disney would not be found to infringe.

Pride and Prejudice with Zombies: Assuming the creator of Pride and Prejudice had a valid copyright, without being familiar with either work I can almost guarantee this would not be Copyright infringement because it would be valid under the satirical exemption to Copyright infringement.

The Clueless and West Side Story examples are more difficult because I am not familiar with the works and the verbiage "inspired by" "based on" is all I am going off of. But this was my whole point regarding the OP that there is an assumption of copyright infringement. Just because a work is "inspired by" or "based on" does legally mean there is infringement. These individual examples would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if they violate copyright law or not.

All I advocate for is extension of the term of a copyright not an expansion of the right itself. In which case I would argue most of your examples would not rely on the underlying works being in the public domain, because they were changed enough to not constitute infringement as opposed to say a 1 on 1 copy of the original work.

⬐ aestra

You have no idea what you are talking about because you do not understand copyright law. It just doesn't work that way.

You can't make a new version of something and not have it be a copyright violation, even if it is significantly different from the original. I'll give you an example, the movie Blade Runner was an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The movie was very different from the book, but rights still hsd to be secured to use the source material and characters and money was paid. I can't even make a completely different movie and have Harry Potter come in my movie because J.K. Rowling, etc owns that character. The exception is for parody.

Plus the burden of proof is on the defendant in a copyright lawsuit - the copyright holder can still sue even if its fair use, now you gotta defend yourself in an expensive lawsuit.

Another example that just came of my head, the movie Apocalypse Now was an adaption of Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness however the setting was changed from The Congo to Vietnam.

⬐ nitrogen

Are you willing to put you interpretation of copyright to the test? Why don't you write a modern retelling of Cinderella based on Disney's version and see how far you get. Next try a remix between Cinderella, Harry Potter, and the leaked Windows source code and see what happens.

⬐ will_brown

With a quick search I found 37 different film versions of Cinderella, I did not look at them individually to confirm, but it would be safe to say Disney did not create 37 versions of Cinderella. So a serious derivative work can be made that does not violate any Disney copyright, but I can certainly say I could create a zombie themed Cinderella that would fall under satire and not constitute a infringement.

I should also note that I am an attorney, and have handled both trademark and copyright infringement cases (for plaintiffs and defendants). That is in addition to successfully registering both and in some cases over objections of the examining USPTO attorney or third parties.

Edit: I don't know why I am being down voted but in the instance it sounds like I am saying I must be right bc I'm an attorney, I am the first to acknowledge disagreement between practitioners, jurisdictions, and Judge's/justices. For what its worth I noted it as a sign of good faith that I am not blowing smoke of my interpretation of copyright law

⬐ nitrogen

Perhaps Cinderella was a poor example due to its origins as a folk tale. Let's substitute Mickey Mouse for Cinderella in my example. Would I be able to write, publish, and profit from my own non-satirical Mickey Mouse stories if I clearly labeled them as not originating from Disney? What about 250 years from now?

I think part of the disconnect between your opinion of copyright law and some of the other commenters here is caused by the lawyer/hacker dichotomy. Hackers tend to view any involvement of the courts as a failure. For most non-wealthy people and most small businesses, the threat alone of legal action has a chilling effect.

An argument I make against long copyrights, especially for famous works, is that these stories and characters become woven into our popular culture. At some point, the public deserve to own their own culture, not megalithic corporations. Cinderella is the story it is because of the additions of different storytellers over time, like the godmother and glass slippers added in Perrault's Cendrillon.

⬐ will_brown

>Perhaps Cinderella was a poor example due to its origins as a folk tale.

I used Cinderella specifically, bc my understanding is the folk tale was very unlike (violent, gory, ect...) the Disney version tailored for children.

In general satire is a much easier and obvious legal analysis as well. Say for example South Park's episodes with Mickey (although more of a Trademark issue than copyright), more on point with copyright is South Park's Star Wars episodes. However, to answer your question, is it possible to make a non-satirical Mickey story that does not violate Disney Trademarks? The answer is yes, but admittedly much more difficult and likely to infringe than a satirical story.

>Hackers tend to view any involvement of the courts as a failure.

As a lawyer, I see lawsuits as a cost of doing business and inevitable for any successful enterprise. I would encourage all hackers, especially, to view lawsuits in the same light (e.g. I am not successful until I get sued). I say this because hackers particularly set out to disrupt established industries, take Uber or AirBnB as good examples, but even YC itself has been sued, that is not a failure that is the cost of success.

> At some point, the public deserve to own their own culture, not megalithic corporations.

This is simply where we disagree, I am not saying you are wrong by any means, because I do not think their is a right answer, your point is sincere and well reasoned. My counter, is that the free market decides. Moreover, if Mickey is not going to win in the market place because society wants to take the character and run with it open source style, well then Mickey will lose in favor of another cartoon Mouse created by an pro open source artist, but I would say the reason Mickey became a cultural icon is because of the tight control of the story and character vis-a-vis Disney ownership/investment. In contrast and in support of your position Japan has a thriving culture based open source character, where even iconic corporate mascots are adopted by the public and the public creates their own stories, comics, commercial products, virtual concerts, ect...

Copyrights are a deal passed between society and authors to encourage creative production. If they create something new, they can live off it for sometime until their copyright expires. Extending copyrights years after the author's death may serve a corporation or their children that can live on that rent but fails at establishing an incentive for creation.

This video by CGP Grey summaries the problem pretty well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4)

⬐ Tycho

How do you know it fails?

These draconian laws like DMCA, SOPA, and copyright extensions that pushed though by the RIAA and MPAA are suppressing our creativity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 and are destroying our cultural heritage. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/11/48625?cu... To top it off, their outdated business model leaches most of the money from the artists. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ Copyright needs to be reformed. Some changes that I'd like to see are:

* Abolish the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

* Intellectual property should be taxed like real property. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weaver20feb20,0,1... It is an asset with a value, right? If you no longer make enough to pay your taxes on it, it goes to the state to dispose of.

* Copyrights are supposed to be an incentive to create. One that lasts unto your grandchildren are a dis-incentive, because not only are you not creating any more once you are dead, neither are your descendants. Copyright should last half a working lifetime (20 years), to encourage people to continue to create.

* Someone who makes copies without permission should pay a fine, but it should be at the regular royalty rate for the item x copies made. So upload a song, it's iTunes price x number of downloads, with perhaps a factor of 3 penalty to discourage doing it, not $150,000 per copy.

If you care about copyright reform, you can donate money to the EFF or at least sign this petition urging reform. http://www.fightforthefuture.org/fixcopyright

⬐ smogzer

The people need a new party to defend their interests. The do not bully party.

Watchi these videos, and hopefully you'll understand why having 14 years for copyright is not the same as 30 or 100 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSt0QG7mY

One of the major problems is copyright. The copyright laws have gotten so out of hand in this country that things still retain copyright long after the creator is dead. Back when it was first issued, it use to be only 28 years in 1710, but it has just increased and increased... I mean, what good is money if your dead? Does the media industry really need to make more than billions and billions of each year? And its not like they're that original, they release old films and books countless times and you're telling me its impossible to turn a profit in 28 years? It's ridiculous www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4