[ralferoo]

Would be be worse off as a society without Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Jungle Book, Mary Poppins, the Herbie series, and any of the many more recent films?

If anything these films are a great example of why copyright terms should be long, because those films are still culturally relevant today, 60-80 years after they're made, and that people are still willing to pay for them over newer films shows that the creators and their families still deserve to continue to get royalties from them.

Sure, film companies often make a quick buck from sequels, but it's interesting that copyright on characters is distinct from copyright on works.

If anything it's surprising that you're arguing something other than the usual issue that's brought up around Disney, which is that their older works frequently took stories that were specifically out of copyright, and then they vigourously pursued copyright on the films they made from those stories.

[basilikum]

> If anything these films are a great example of why copyright terms should be long, because those films are still culturally relevant today, 60-80 years after they're made, and that people are still willing to pay for them over newer films shows that the creators and their families still deserve to continue to get royalties from them.

The people who get most of the money from these movies are the shareholders of huge media conglomerates, which is the only reason why these works still have copyright. Authors and their families are purely a pretense for this.

The point of people deserving a monopoly over aspects of culture long after they created a work and deserving to censor the works of others who do not pay royalties to their monopoly – this is what copyright means – is weird. It sounds good as long as you read it as a feel good story without thinking about it, but it is ultimately moot. No, they do not. The argument is bizarre. We do not grant this privilege to anyone else. Everyone else gets paid for their work when they do it. They can even invest the money like everyone else. When you've hit it big with a creative work you are set for life. But when I build a house for you, I get paid once. I cannot get back to you 20 years later and demand payment once again because you are still living in it and benefiting from my work. It would be absurd. Obviously in creative works there is usually uncertainty. Most works are not created in exchange to a previously agreed commission by one party, but are created as an advance investment and then offered to the general public. We have to grant copyright to these works for a limited time so the author has the chance of making money from their work. There is no reason to extent this copyright beyond this limited time period and to grant authors such a special privilege. On the contrary there is all the reason not to do this as copyright is ultimately censorship and must be limited to the utmost minimal necessity.

> Disney, which is that their older works frequently took stories that were specifically out of copyright, and then they vigourously pursued copyright on the films they made from those stories.

That is perfectly fine. No one in their right mind would argue against that. The evil of disney is not creating derivative works of works in the public domain, but after the fact lobbying to retroactively extend copyright forever so that no work will ever fall into the public domain again; so that no one will be able to do the same as them – creating derivatives to decades old works that ought to be in the public domain; so that they can effectively own culture.

[ralferoo]

> Everyone else gets paid for their work when they do it. They can even invest the money like everyone else. When you've hit it big with a creative work you are set for life. But when I build a house for you, I get paid once.

This is fine for transactional work, where it's very clear - you do/make something and sell it, perhaps a carpenter selling a table or whatever.

It completely fails if, for example, an author spends 4 years unpaid writing their latest book, and after the first copy is sold anybody is free to duplicate the words from that book without giving the author a penny for that work. One of the specific reasons for copyright is to ensure that the author is granted exclusivity over sale of the works, such that they can earn a fair wage to compensate for the 4 years of their life without any income at all. How us it unfair that if that author lives another 50 years and people are happy paying for the book for the next 50 years, the author should continue receiving money for it, rather than just some unrelated party whose only skill is being able to scan and reprint the book for basically the cost of the paper?

It's also fair to allow copyright after the author's death, because their children also should be allowed to benefit from their parent's work too. In most families, the parents want to pass on a legacy to their children. Why should an author be any different? Or are you saying if someone owned property that provided a monthly rental income, on their death the children shouldn't be allowed to inherit that property or the income stream?

If you say that the parent needs to earn all the income from the novel themselves and only that can be passed to the children, what if someone has spent 4 years writing a novel, and is killed in a traffic accident a day after launch day? Should their children not be allowed to profit from their parent's work just because they died before the income stream was realised? What about the 4 years of hardship the entire family endured?

Corporations just extend this thinking, because legally a corporation is considered to be a legal person. If you're making a film that requires lots of capital and many participants, there's a lot of investment in that production. In this case, it makes sense that the individual artists sign over their rights to the work they do for a salary to the company (if they don't like a paid job, they can always go and create their own works or set up their own company, etc) and equally, the investors need some time to recoup the investment they made. If we didn't permit this, then simply put, the vast majority of films would never have existed. Society would be far worse off.

[basilikum]

> It completely fails if, for example, an author spends 4 years unpaid writing their latest book, and after the first copy is sold anybody is free to duplicate the words from that book without giving the author a penny for that work. One of the specific reasons for copyright is to ensure that the author is granted exclusivity over sale of the works, such that they can earn a fair wage to compensate for the 4 years of their life without any income at all.

I completely agree with you. Authors should have a monopoly over the distribution of their work "for a limited time so the author has the chance of making money from their work".

> How us it unfair that if that author lives another 50 years and people are happy paying for the book for the next 50 years, the author should continue receiving money for it, rather than just some unrelated party whose only skill is being able to scan and reprint the book for basically the cost of the paper?

You are framing this in an emotional, artificially limited scenario under the category of fairness. The reality is that copyright has been extended multiple times for works that had already been written for the benefit of huge corporations that lobbied for it. The revenue of an accomplished author for their family is a feel good pretense for this. They did not play any role in the political decision process for this. The authors of these works created them without the expectancy of lifelong copyright protection and even copyright protection for their descendants. That did not stop them from creating these works and had they expected lifelong copyright I am certain we now would not have significantly more works from this time frame.

You are portraying only the author in this and postulating copyright like a natural right that is only fair. It is not. Copyright is censorship. It is not fair to censor the derivative works of others or to demand payment from people for obtaining copies of decades old works; to use your category of the subjective feeling of fairness. Much more importantly than the feeling of it being fair: It is unjust. Copyright is censorship. It restricts access to information and culture. We initially imposed this censorship as a societal contract between the public and an author to incentivize the creation of more works. We restrict people from sharing a work and even from creating their own derivative creative work of it, because only through this censorship the work being censored even came to be. Therefore the result of that censorship is more expression, art and information, not less. This is why the censorship of copyright is justifiable. Any copyright term beyond this is unjust.

You speak of copying as an unskilled, dishonorable act. Copying is what our civilization including all the great works you want to monopolize are built on. All significant works are derivative works to some degree. We now live in a world where through the monopolization of creative works under few huge media conglomerates these conglomerates effectively own large parts of our culture. The lengthy copyright terms give these corporations exclusive controls over many aspects of our cultural heritage. We still make adaptions to ancient mythology to this day, but the cultural canon of our society has greatly expanded since them. Mythology and fairy tales only grew to what they are because there was no copyright on them. What we are doing today to our modern cultural heritage is like the ancient Greeks putting copyright on mythologies. Had they done that our literature would be much poorer today. Would we limit copyright terms our literature would be much richer today by allowing people to write their own derivative works to the cultural goods of our age.