A discussion on the ethics of piracy

[Flanger-Hanger]

I think it's fair for Disney to own their own interpretations of characters when so many are not really their own creations. Is Disney really stoping others from making Snow White, Cinderella or Zorro movies becuase they renew the version they made? Disney does not own a monopoly on these stories so that argument falls flat.

Never mind Disney, but has the entire media industry suffered and crumbled under the weight and restrcitions of copyright laws? All signs outside of a few grouchy super-fans would indicate no.

And what would happen if most of their cataloge went public domain? How many sub-par editions of Peter Pan do we need? Do we want even more crappy merch, attractions and video games based on these creations? You'd surely have fans moaning on sites like this about how Walt is "spinning in his grave" over such junk and arguments involving how the man faught so hard to keep all his creations after Oswald was taken from him. Are Disney fans really willing to put up with all of this just to get Song of the South on DVD?

[2099net]

I think it's fair for Disney to own their own interpretations of characters when so many are not really their own creations. Is Disney really stoping others from making Snow White, Cinderella or Zorro movies becuase they renew the version they made? Disney does not own a monopoly on these stories so that argument falls flat.

But they own the monopoly on THEIR versions. When Snow White goes back into the vault, its effectively being withdrawn from the market. Song of the South has never been on the DVD/Blu-ray market. As far as I know in the US its never even been on the VHS market.

You can still have a monopoly on an entertainment item - its all supply and demand. People want Disney's Snow White and they won't be able to get it. People want Song of the South and they can't get it.

Any monopoly helps to keep prices high and that's certainly the thinking behind Disney's Vault system. Something they wouldn't be able to do if they didn't have the monopoly in the first place. And going back to piracy, it's one of the reasons for piracy - people feel prices are too high or the item they want to buy is no longer available for purchase.

Never mind Disney, but has the entire media industry suffered and crumbled under the weight and restrcitions of copyright laws? All signs outside of a few grouchy super-fans would indicate no.

Yet you don't mind Disney making Tinkerbell movies or Jake and the Never Land Pirates shorts now that Peter Pan's concepts are in the Public Domain. Its the same argument. Disney have obviously benefited from the concept of the Public Domain - therefore other entertainment companies should be able to.

And what would happen if most of their cataloge went public domain? How many sub-par editions of Peter Pan do we need? Do we want even more crappy merch, attractions and video games based on these creations? You'd surely have fans moaning on sites like this about how Walt is "spinning in his grave" over such junk and arguments involving how the man faught so hard to keep all his creations after Oswald was taken from him. Are Disney fans really willing to put up with all of this just to get Song of the South on DVD?

Nobody would have the right to do what they wanted with the films - even if they ended up in the public domain. Disney still holds and maintains the trademarks to them, which includes likenesses as well as logos etc. So even if Mickey Mouse or (Disney's version of) Peter Pan was in the public domain, people wouldn't be able to have images of Mickey etc without Disney's approval. So we wouldn't have a flood of images of Mickey injecting himself with drugs or other "un-Disney" like behaviour.

[Flanger-Hanger]

But they own the monopoly on THEIR versions. When Snow White goes back into the vault, its effectively being withdrawn from the market. Song of the South has never been on the DVD/Blu-ray market. As far as I know in the US its never even been on the VHS market.

You can still have a monopoly on an entertainment item - its all supply and demand. People want Disney's Snow White and they won't be able to get it. People want Song of the South and they can't get it.

Any monopoly helps to keep prices high and that's certainly the thinking behind Disney's Vault system. Something they wouldn't be able to do if they didn't have the monopoly in the first place. And going back to piracy, it's one of the reasons for piracy - people feel prices are too high or the item they want to buy is no longer available for purchase.

The reasons for Song of the South's lack of US/Canada home video release goes far beyond copyright concerns and everyone here knows that. If people want it that badly they can burn a laserdisc rip to a DVD and be done with it. No legal action has been taken by Disney against such individuals.

The vault practice has been around for decades and has worked just fine for Disney, with or without piracy. They still sell millions of copies of their selected "Diamond" titles. And if consumers felt prices were too high, they wouldn't buy them, but they do becuase they still feel the value is there. It's not like Disney charges $100+ for each title.

Yet you don't mind Disney making Tinkerbell movies or Jake and the Never Land Pirates shorts now that Peter Pan's concepts are in the Public Domain. Its the same argument. Disney have obviously benefited from the concept of the Public Domain - therefore other entertainment companies should be able to.

When it comes to the concept of public domain I am fine with the idea that if you don't renew copyrights titles enter that state, but I find it ridiculous that people and corporations somehow shouldn't be able to renew their own creations/ideas. What other forms of private property should be forced by law to be put up for grabs after 20 years?

You keep stressing the idea of a monopoly harming the idustry, but where is the proof? Where are the decline in sales as a direct result of it for example? If piracy is the answer, then why are such actions on a decline as a result of a shift in the way the industry does business? Is it possible for copyright laws and consumer spending habbits to co-exist just fine? Decades worth of success would indicate yes.

Nobody would have the right to do what they wanted with the films - even if they ended up in the public domain. Disney still holds and maintains the trademarks to them, which includes likenesses as well as logos etc. So even if Mickey Mouse or (Disney's version of) Peter Pan was in the public domain, people wouldn't be able to have images of Mickey etc without Disney's approval. So we wouldn't have a flood of images of Mickey injecting himself with drugs or other "un-Disney" like behaviour.

I never suggested "un-Disney" like behaviour, just more poor quality products. And if copyrights are unfair then shouldn't trademarks be too?

[2099net]

Firstly, I've not and never have condones piracy. I personally don't think its required and never will.

Yes, the vault system may have been in place for years and years, but it doesn't alter the fact its only done for money, and they wouldn't be able to do it if they didn't have a monopoly on that content. Just saying its been done for years doesn't really justify the practice.

Surely by now Disney's more than made their money back on Snow White? A drugs company can literally invest hundreds of millions into the development of a new drug, and only keep the exclusive rights for 20 years! Why is the entertainment industry an exception, and remains an exception?

As for Song of the South, copyright is the reason its not available. If Disney didn't have the copyright, they couldn't have it repressed. It's as simple as that. I'm not advocating Disney loose copyright - but like I suggested perhaps the law should be changed to that they could be forced to licence it out. As I said before, in such a situation, everybody wins - the consumer, Disney itself and the licencee.

Well, outside the entertainment industry it has been demonstratively proved that monopolies harm their industries - that's why most Western governments have some form of panel or commission to investigate abuses of monopolies or cartels.

As for the entertainment industry - they keep telling us piracy harms their business (although I'm not that convinced it does) - so if you take that as a fact, and if you accept some of the arguments for piracy ("its not available", "its too expensive") then it seems the monoploy of content is harming their business because its encouraging piracy (from which they claim they loose billions per year).

However, I'm more concerned with their content monopoly harming the consumer.

Finally regarding trademarks, a trademark is primarily used to ensure ongoing sales of a product, including ongoing development. The recipe and flavouring of Pringles for example keep changing and evolving. But the trademark generally remains the same. Apple makes new iterations of their iPhone. The difference is, Disney isn't really evolving or moving forward by retaining the copyright for their Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs movie. They're just reaping the benefit of work done generations before this generation with little or no effort (restorations withstanding - which frankly are only done to enable them to keep selling the same film to new TV and home video formats).

So Disney holding the trademark on Mickey Mouse means that they can keep making Mickey Mouse shorts, films and products and still get their rewards from the character's past without simply coasting on Steamboat Willie. Any new content they make for Mickey Mouse retains its copyright for however long it currently is (70 years?) so its not exactly as if Disney are onto a loser by doing so.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well any move a business makes is for money so I feel it's wrong to argue that Disney is bad for wanting to keep copyrights to make money, but Shout! wanting to sell movies under their name is fine. They're in it for the money too.

As for Piracy, I too feel it doesn't really harm the industry in most cases. Avatar apparently lost over $400 million because of pirating, but since it made $2.77 billion worldwide before home media I can't really cry for James Cameron. That and the really effective way to combat it is to understand why people do it and not just say "no".

Getting back to copyrights, what amount of time would you feel is fair before they should expire? It's safe to say that 20 years after a work is made the original creators are still alive and could benefit from their work, but 70 years later they're long gone.

[The_Iceflash]

But they own the monopoly on THEIR versions.

So what? This is a bad thing? THEIR versions are THEIRS. There's nothing wrong with monopolizing their versions and doing what they want with them. It's THEIRS. WE aren't and shouldn't be entitled to their property.

However, I'm more concerned with their content monopoly harming the consumer.

Again, why should others have the right to do what they want with Disney's property? We may not like that Disney isn't releasing certain things of theirs but we shouldn't be entitled to it either.

"Having a monopoly on their products" seen as a bad thing is a crock. It's theirs. They own their own films. There's no reason why they shouldn't. It's not a monopoly when it's their own creations! Disney's versions of stories are Disney's and nobody should tell anyone that they can't own their own creations.

but I find it ridiculous that people and corporations somehow shouldn't be able to renew their own creations/ideas

I agree. People shouldn't be entitled to use Disney's ideas and Disney shouldn't be forced to lose ownership of their own creations/ideas.

[The_Iceflash]

Getting back to copyrights, what amount of time would you feel is fair before they should expire? It's safe to say that 20 years after a work is made the original creators are still alive and could benefit from their work, but 70 years later they're long gone.

If it's a company like the Disney company that's still in existence then the copyright shouldn't expire.

[2099net]

For copyright I think the lifetime + 20 years or 70 years rule is fine. Should a work of art be self-published then I think its fair for the creator to benefit for his lifetime. I'm not so sure his/her estate should though, so that seems correct to me. After all, for most creative people, being creative is either a hobby or viewed as a job - if I'm a manual worker and make a chair, I don't expect to get residues 50 years later if people are still using it to sit on!

Of course, a lot of creative work isn't self-published but is commissioned by a large corporation or bought by a large corporation. And large corporations don't have "lives". Personally I would think for non-individual holding copyright 50 years sounds right. Any company should be able to more than profit from 50 years of ownership - and if they don't then they've spent too much money on it, and its a bad business decision and it isn't really the fault of a copyright law. Corporation's aren't (or shouldn't be) immune from bad decision making. But being as I think its currently 70 years, I would keep it at that.

Regarding piracy, I think the bulk of piracy is obviously content being copied simply because it can. Just because people can see something for nothing doesn't mean that they'd be willing to pay for it in the first place. I suspect very little of film/tv/music piracy is lost sales.

[2099net]

If it's a company like the Disney company that's still in existence then the copyright shouldn't expire.

In what respect is it "theirs" - is anyone at Disney today who was involved in the creation of Snow White (for example)?

What about the people who did make it when employed by Disney? If it's Disney's for all eternity, shouldn't family members of the original creators get ownership too? Is it right that simply by being employed by a company, that company owns the totality of a persons thoughts and ideas?

What if Disney was bought by Apple. Would Snow White then become Apple's? - They had nothing at all to do with its creation. Should you just be able to cynically trade "art" and "imagination" that way?

Should there be a limit on what corporations can and cannot "own"?

I don't think it can be better for any society when imagination is monetarised for total perpetually.

[milojthatch]

When it comes to the concept of public domain I am fine with the idea that if you don't renew copyrights titles enter that state, but I find it ridiculous that people and corporations somehow shouldn't be able to renew their own creations/ideas. What other forms of private property should be forced by law to be put up for grabs after 20 years?

You keep stressing the idea of a monopoly harming the idustry, but where is the proof? Where are the decline in sales as a direct result of it for example? If piracy is the answer, then why are such actions on a decline as a result of a shift in the way the industry does business? Is it possible for copyright laws and consumer spending habbits to co-exist just fine? Decades worth of success would indicate yes.

Ok, let's say copyrights laws as they exist today were around 2000 years ago, heck, since story tellers first started telling stories. Do you know the history of story telling? Of how stories and myths were formed and created from year-to-year, decade-to-decade, century-to-century? Story teller A shares a story around the camp fire, story teller B hears said story and changes it a little. Story teller C then hears story teller B's version and changes it still some more and so on and so forth. If copyright laws existed since human existence, story teller A would probably have THE copyright and then sue story tellers B and C for copyright infringement. How different would society be today if copyright laws and corporations constantly re-upping said copyrights, had always existed?

Again, I re-state, the original intend of copyright laws have been perverted. Unlike a career like a police officer, teacher, or doctor, artist exist in a very interesting place in society. Their entire exist depends of thoughts and ideas, which can be more challenging to deal with or measure then most other careers. The idea of an "original" idea is frankly a joke when one looks at the bigger picture. There really are only so many ideas story wise with only so many combinations and if given enough time, multiple artists on their own will "create" each and every one of these ideas. Copyright laws exist to award the artist who comes up with those ideas first, so that he can earn an honest living without fear of another artist devaluing his "creation" and possibly loose money he needs to live and possibly take care of his family with.

But, the idea is, that once he is done with it (i.e. dead), his family are allowed a time period to use said copyright to take care of themselves and tradition to their means of earning money before that idea is put into public domain. When an idea isn't allowed to natural go back into public domain, it is literally the same idea as if someone from any other profession (doctor, lawyer, teacher) never retired. Of coarse sooner or later, doctors and lawyer die, but what if they lived say 50 years longer then they naturally were going to and they never retired? Can you see what effect that would have on society? On the work force? New doctors and lawyer out of college wouldn't have spaces to enter the work force. Society would get backed up. This idea is no different from copyright laws and artists. If ideas are not allowed to go back into public domain, sooner or later there will be fewer ideas that are not owned by someone and slowly future artist will have no choice but to work for one of these super giant coronations that owns all the ideas, where their "creativity" will be dictated to them by said corporation. Artist will one day no longer be allowed to come up with their own ideas becuase all of them will be owned by someone.

By the way, a few years ago Disney filed a trademark that would give them ownership of all uses of the story "Snow White," not just theirs. It is still pending, but is a very clear sign of where this will go if these corporation are not stopped and if they are not made to follow the original intent of the law and start loosing copyrights as they age.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=seria ... est+Status

In what respect is it "theirs" - is anyone at Disney today who was involved in the creation of Snow White (for example)?

What about the people who did make it when employed by Disney? If it's Disney's for all eternity, shouldn't family members of the original creators get ownership too? Is it right that simply by being employed by a company, that company owns the totality of a persons thoughts and ideas?

What if Disney was bought by Apple. Would Snow White then become Apple's? - They had nothing at all to do with its creation. Should you just be able to cynically trade "art" and "imagination" that way?

Should there be a limit on what corporations can and cannot "own"?

I don't think it can be better for any society when imagination is monetarised for total perpetually.

Bingo! Funny you should use "Snow White" as your example. See above.

[Goliath]

I'm sick of copyrights being extended and extended and never ending. They need to expire, end of story. [...] Disney is frankly the poster child for what is wrong with copyright laws. [...] When copyrights never expire, you wind up having fewer and fewer original ideas that new artist are allowed to create and make enough money to live off of, as ultimately, every idea is slightly like an older one.

I strongly disagree with that. I don't think it would be fair if just about anybody would be allowed to use Mickey Mouse, like would be the case if Disney's copyright on the character wouldn't have been extended. I would hate it if everybody could put out 'Tintin' comics just because it has been 75 years since Hergé created him. Makes no sense to me.

I value private property too much to feel Disney should lose ownership of it's properties so I can have a cheap low quality public domain release.

I agree. And this is coming from a socialist.

Why should somebody who writes a song have longer ownership to somebody who invents a cheap, easily manufacturable glasses free 3D TV? What involved more investment both money and time wise?

But why should any random schmuck without any talent be able to make money out off a song that a great artist like Dylan has spend a lot of time and energy on to complete? (Or why should any random company be able to use any Disney character after Disney itself has poured their hearts, souls, time and money into creating them in the first place?)

"I have no talent and no original ideas of my own! But if I just wait a couple of years, I can just use other people's ideas to make money!"

[ajmrowland]

I'm kinda torn here. I do think that private property should for the most part remain that.

But if, say, a certain property or portion of a property is underused, then it shouldnt be illegal to overright the copyright. I'm thinking about SotS: the movie is way underused, but the characters are still on a theme park ride.

[disneyboy20022]

When I saw the image below I thought of this thread in particular

[SillySymphony]

Similar to disneyboy20022, when my friend on facebook shared this thread came to mind.

[dvdjunkie]

I think if you just read, word for word, the FBI Warning on the front of each DVD or Blu-ray or Game, you will see what the law is. If you can't follow those rules, then you are committing a crime that is punishable by law.

[milojthatch]

I think if you just read, word for word, the FBI Warning on the front of each DVD or Blu-ray or Game, you will see what the law is. If you can't follow those rules, then you are committing a crime that is punishable by law.

That is actually not the full law, it's Hollywood's interpretation of the law.

This is about Hollywood, but it does talk about issue of patents and trademarks laws in the US. The point is that copyrights and trademarks and patents are being twisted in ways that will ultimately allow major corporations across the spectrum to own EVERYTHING. And like idiots, we are letting them. Go to about 5:55 in the video and enjoy! This is a great documentary by the way about food, but it touches on the issue we are discussing throughout the whole documentary. As I have said and will keep saying, I don't want to live in a World where every thought, every idea, ever name, food, tree, lie is owned by some corporation or another. Film piracy may be bad, but no more so then the laws they are breaking.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jNezTsrCY0Q" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[milojthatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862Bbj ... ture=share