Comments on: Why is Hollywood so against consumers? http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/2008/12/26/why-is-hollywood-so-against-consumers/ Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:02:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Finrod http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/2008/12/26/why-is-hollywood-so-against-consumers/#comment-390 Finrod Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:03:14 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/?p=37#comment-390 Just look at how much money Disney has made taking public domain stories and making their own versions of them. Nearly every story told owes its existence to borrowing themes and ideas from previous stories; it's only fair to future storytellers that current stories should eventually return to the public domain to refresh the well of stories so that future generations can borrow from them to make new stories of their own. No generation should have a monopoly on creativity. Just look at how much money Disney has made taking public domain stories and making their own versions of them. Nearly every story told owes its existence to borrowing themes and ideas from previous stories; it’s only fair to future storytellers that current stories should eventually return to the public domain to refresh the well of stories so that future generations can borrow from them to make new stories of their own. No generation should have a monopoly on creativity.

]]> By: Neil Stevens http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/2008/12/26/why-is-hollywood-so-against-consumers/#comment-389 Neil Stevens Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:09:21 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/?p=37#comment-389 See also the Betamax case. See also the Betamax case.

]]> By: Jeff Walden http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/2008/12/26/why-is-hollywood-so-against-consumers/#comment-388 Jeff Walden Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:21:29 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/?p=37#comment-388 A property-rights advocate might cringe at limiting copyright terms, and at least on the surface there may seem good reasons not to limit them, or at the least to make their duration large. A proper balancing of the interests of the creator and the user, however, recognizes that copyright is essentially a means of state-granted monopoly. At some point the value for the creator over time becomes less than the value for society in general that is not achieved by eliminating restrictions on the content. Anyone who hasn't read Macaulay on the topic of copyright should do so; as the preface of this document notes, his two speeches on the matter "cover everything fundamental which is involved in the issue": http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm They're long, but I hope that won't stop anyone on this site from reading them. On a less abstract note, this issue is particularly important to many of Erick Ericson's "technologists"; paying more attention to this topic and giving it a more prominent position in agendas, stump speeches, and platforms would be a strong first step toward winning some of that vote. A property-rights advocate might cringe at limiting copyright terms, and at least on the surface there may seem good reasons not to limit them, or at the least to make their duration large. A proper balancing of the interests of the creator and the user, however, recognizes that copyright is essentially a means of state-granted monopoly. At some point the value for the creator over time becomes less than the value for society in general that is not achieved by eliminating restrictions on the content.

Anyone who hasn’t read Macaulay on the topic of copyright should do so; as the preface of this document notes, his two speeches on the matter “cover everything fundamental which is involved in the issue”:

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

They’re long, but I hope that won’t stop anyone on this site from reading them.

On a less abstract note, this issue is particularly important to many of Erick Ericson’s “technologists”; paying more attention to this topic and giving it a more prominent position in agendas, stump speeches, and platforms would be a strong first step toward winning some of that vote.

]]> By: Finrod http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/2008/12/26/why-is-hollywood-so-against-consumers/#comment-387 Finrod Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:55:08 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/kevin_holtsberry/?p=37#comment-387 Just look at the RIAA threatening lawsuits and blackmailing people into expensive settlements that far exceed what it would have cost to simply buy the copied music at the mall. All they care about is extracting as much money out of our pockets as they possibly can, and that's all they ever will care about. Hollywood has also been blocking copyright reform since forever, which is why so many orphaned works are being lost because they're not profitable for the owners to sell any more. Every time Mickey Mouse gets close to falling out of copyright, Disney lobbies Congress to extend copyright terms yet again. The Constitution says that copyrights are supposed to be for a <b>limited</b> time, but how limited can that be when 14 years becomes 28 years becomes 75 years becomes 95 years? When's the last time that anything actually passed out of copyright? Just look at the RIAA threatening lawsuits and blackmailing people into expensive settlements that far exceed what it would have cost to simply buy the copied music at the mall. All they care about is extracting as much money out of our pockets as they possibly can, and that’s all they ever will care about.

Hollywood has also been blocking copyright reform since forever, which is why so many orphaned works are being lost because they’re not profitable for the owners to sell any more. Every time Mickey Mouse gets close to falling out of copyright, Disney lobbies Congress to extend copyright terms yet again. The Constitution says that copyrights are supposed to be for a limited time, but how limited can that be when 14 years becomes 28 years becomes 75 years becomes 95 years? When’s the last time that anything actually passed out of copyright?

]]>