This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when ‘Steamboat Willie’ enters the public domain

  • Heavybell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    We agree on updating IP laws, but I think they should be curtailed rather than extended. You should not have the monopoly on an idea your entire life. If you can’t milk a fortune from it in 50 years it wasn’t that good an idea, so everyone else should be free to build on and improve it after that point.

    And even if you absolutely kill it and your brand is still going strong decades later, that 50 years will cover anything new your did in that time. Plus it’s not like people wouldn’t know yours is the original even after the copyright expire; something entering public domain doesn’t make it legal to claim you invented it if you didn’t.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      If you make something, it should be yours to disseminate as you wish. It’s silly to suggest otherwise. You literally created it.

      • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Copyright isn’t just paying for an idea, its giving a complete monopoly over a concept. We came up with the idea of copyright to give creators a much easier way to profit off their creation (not having to compete after its created) to make sure innovation is very rewarded. That said, its still a government enforced monopoly, with all the issues that come with that, and with how much its been extended, its far past the point of encouraging innovation and instead just works to cement large companies in place, resting on their laurals rather than making anything new. Even when a copyright ends, the current copyright holder wouldn’t lose the idea, they just no longer have a monopoly on it. Disney can and will keep making Micky Mouse content, and the mouse will probably keep being accociated with them for centuries to come unless someone makes something that dwarfs the impact of Disney’s work with the character, in which case its best that it was released anyway.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t disagree with this necessarily (obviously, I think Mickey Mouse should belong to Disney forever) but this is why I recommend reform rather than throwing it out

          • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, why should the government protect their monopoly? The original creator is dead, so he doesn’t benifit from it. The cartoon is 95 years old, and I doubt Walt Disney factored in the profit his company would make 60+ after he died, when deciding to make the original animation. The only reason to let Disney maintain their monopoly on it is to allow a massive coorperation to get more money without doing any new work.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Except they do create new works using that same IP, quite regularly.

              • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                I think you’re misunderstanding how copyright works. Losing the copyright doesn’t mean they won’t be able to make new works, nor does it mean those new works won’t have copyright. Copyright is only lost on the original work, so while others can use Steamboat Willie, and that very specific version of Micky Mouse, Disney still owns modern updates to him. Either way, the end of that monopoly opens more avenues for newer authors to build on it, while again, doing nothing but reducing Disney’s passive income for work their founder did a century ago. Its a more physical example, but along the same line of logic, if I cure cancer, it might make sense to give me time to get a head start on profiting from it (so I am rewarded for my work) but it would be ridiculous to say no one is else is allowed to use my cure for cancer or build on it for the next century or longer. Theres absolutely no reason not to allow the ideas to spread once the author has had plenty of time to make a profit.

      • A7thStone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No-one creates something from whole cloth. All ideas are based on things that came before them. Locking those ideas up indefinitely will stifle creativity and stagnate culture.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Locking those ideas up indefinitely will stifle creativity and stagnate culture.

          How? I don’t see any evidence of this. Can you point some out?

          As mentioned elsewhere

          Like, Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time and is the exact same story as Fern Gully, retold in space.