Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by skummetmaelk 903 days ago
Take what you can, give nothing back. Apparently.
2 comments

That has been Disney's motto since forever. The "golden age if Disney" is all public domain works and fairy tales.
Public domain for thee, but not for me.
Arguably, the corruption here is not Disney, but the lawmakers agreeing to change the law. If lawmakers cannot handle the pressure from large lobbyists, they should forbid large lobbyists. Etc.

Disney should be allowed to protect their interests within the applicable laws.

Or maybe people and should have morals and standards beyond "whatever is legal."
Hey come on they have original ideas, talking African animals, talking cars, talking fish, talking toys. Without intellectual property protection they wouldn't of made all these super original ideas.
I understand you are ’reworking’ a reductive history of Pixar’s canon meme except for one thing you added: “talking African animals”.

Which is a reference to the Lion King, one of the mouse’s 2d classics, which is also one of their most egregious derivative works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion

The Lion King is more Hamlet than Kimba, I think. Royal family, brother of king kills king to get throne, queen not happy about this turn of events, the kid is elsewhere, ghost of king tells kid to sort it out, kid returns to royal court and after a fight ends up offing the usurper.

But in Hamlet Shakespeare kills everyone; while in The Lion King, Walt disnae.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1mIfQuo4

Here's a nearly 3 hour video from someone whose Special Interest is The Lion King where he researches the claims that it's ripping off Kimba.

If you don't want to watch it, the original kimba series was 52 episodes and only bears a superficial resemblance to The Lion King.

_MANY_ of the most egregious examples are actually from the 1997 Kimba movie released as Jungle Emperor Leo which came out after The Lion King.

I enjoyed this comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1mIfQuo4 more than Kimba or Lion King (longer than both of them too!)

lion king 1 1/2 was fantastic tho

Fair point. I even remember that video releasing and here I am 3 years later spreading misinformation like exactly what it is ranting about.

I think the visual/contextual similarities with the original manga/anime run do in fact point more plainly to the reality of the mouses' relationship with their public domain reworks.

That is, what they did exactly exemplifies excellent use of the public domain. They did more than just updated reproductions of the original works. They used the public domain as a starting point, an inspiration, but told their own stories; often wildly different from their source, like, where I mention elsewhere, The Little Mermaid.

The problem focused on should be that while they benefited from having access to these works in the public domain they have spent time and resources to ensure others are unable to do the same with work they have financial control over that should have long been included in the public domain.

All that IP and the talent behind it became Disney's after the acquired Pixar from Steve Jobs.
Oh OK, I was wondering how they came up with so many original ideas but it makes sense now that they had to buy them.
Bahaha... oh man... I'm imagining this comment being read in the voice and cadence of standup comedy.
I love watching 2 hour animated films with no dialogue personally
Any recommendations?
Fantasia is 2h 4m according to IMDB. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032455/

12 more years, I guess.

Very piracy, but okay for the big guy.
It's only piracy when the law isn't on your side
You realize that the folks at Disney put in thousands of hours to create their own version of the story. Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work.

But go ahead and pretend that this is the same as the cheap-ass behavior of some stoned pirate who can't bring himself to pay for content and uses Lessig as a justification for his thievery.

>Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work.

And "Steamboat Bill" didn't?

I fail to see the difference outside of the fact that Grimm et. Al didn't have a small army OF lawyers to say otherwise.

I'm not sure your point? I admitted that they borrowed a bit. And then your point is that "Steamboat Bill" borrowed? Okay. I guess. But I'm not denying that the filmmakers and artists grab ideas and plots from the collective idea well. I'm saying that they also put in thousands if not millions of hours of work creating the new version.

It's just wrong for the pro piracy crowd to use this as an excuse to justify their theft.

Please don't troll on HN.

Theft is taking something away from someone. Copying by definition doesn't. Pretending it's equivalent to, or even similar to, "theft" is ridiculous.

That’s not true. There’s a whole history of legislation and publications, e.g. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/intellectual-proper...

and

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ147

If the terminology is good enough for the DoJ and Congress, it’s good enough for an internet forum.

I don’t like this movement to memoryhole the debate we had in the ‘90s through wordsmithing.

>It's just wrong for the pro piracy crowd to use this as an excuse to justify their theft.

My main point wasn't really about modern pirates. The internet cabal will define however they want to fit their own notions.

It was more about artists treated as "thieves" by companies like Disney that themselves have done "copyright infringement" to get themselves off the ground (by the definition they defined over the past century).

Keep huffing that corporate propaganda.
> Yeah, they borrowed a bit, but they put in plenty of their own work.

Maybe you should take a second read of the original, Grimm's version.