Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CJ1145]

Which reminds me: The Disney Vault is the biggest hunk of metal bullshit this side of the Pacific.

[Grakelin]

What are you even talking about

[Jackrabbit]

Yeah, I was wondering. I'm assuming The Disney Vault is a DVD collection that comes in a metal case and The Pacific is a DVD collection of the miniseries, and also comes in a metal case.

I'm wondering why you think both are bullshit.

[CJ1145]

The Disney Vault is like Walt's personal Fort Knox. I'm pretty sure it's just a metaphor for the company keeping all the good DVDs away from you, but it's cooler to imagine it as a physical place. You guys ever seen those commercials where it's like "Buy The Jungle Book soon before it's put back in the vault forever!"? That sort of thing.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

The "Disney Vault" is basically a contrived system to create artificial scarcity of old as fuck all movies, by rotating them out and claiming they're being discontinued, so any given movie is only on the market for a relatively short period of time (especially considering it mainly applies to now-ancient movies, that have been out for decades). It works because Disney is just that evil and monolithic (and already rich enough to bribe the entirety of congress to extend copyright every time the copyright on mickey mouse is about to run out).

[Grakelin]

I don't think they have to bribe congress for that. The copyright is owned by the corporation, so until the corporation goes under, it is well within its rights to renew the copyright. This is important, because the corporation WOULD go under if it couldn't do this.

Disney's Vault is just the same as a film archive. The movies aren't actually gone, it's just not really economically feasible to still be mass producing copies of them and sending them all over the world. If everybody watches the movie all the time and continues buying it, it won't be vaulted. But since everybody already owned all the Disney movies on VHS, they vaulted a bunch of them and brought them back to sell them on DVD.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I don't think they have to bribe congress for that. The copyright is owned by the corporation, so until the corporation goes under, it is well within its rights to renew the copyright. This is important, because the corporation WOULD go under if it couldn't do this.

It's not a matter of renewing, it's a matter of bribing congress to unilaterally increase the length of copyright. At this point, it's gotten to what? Life of the creator + 90 years? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. That is insane beyond the point of insanity. The idea that copyright should be even life is excessive, and that it extends another fucking lifetime past that is just mindbogglingly absurd. I cannot put to words just how obscene and ridiculous this is.

[fenrif]

I don't think they have to bribe congress for that. The copyright is owned by the corporation, so until the corporation goes under, it is well within its rights to renew the copyright. This is important, because the corporation WOULD go under if it couldn't do this.

It's not a matter of renewing, it's a matter of bribing congress to unilaterally increase the length of copyright. At this point, it's gotten to what? Life of the creator + 90 years? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. That is insane beyond the point of insanity. The idea that copyright should be even life is excessive, and that it extends another fucking lifetime past that is just mindbogglingly absurd. I cannot put to words just how obscene and ridiculous this is.

Surely you're not suggesting some unfair system whereby a poor defenceless coorperation is forced to create new works to stay in buisness instead of just re-releasing it's extremely old back catalogue ad infinitum. That's madness! :O

I just watched the latest two episodes of futurama (7 and and was honestly uite surprised with how good 7 was. It really had the feel and style of the old episodes, good writing and jokes, consistency and continuity with the rest of the series, etc.

Then I watched the one about the cats. Such a bitter dissapointment after the time travel one... I'd hoped the series had found its legs again. Instead it seems like theres gonna be about 1 in 4 episodes worth watching.

There's definatly something going on with the writers of this show. It's like they all decided to never talk to each other about their episodes. Leela and Fry's relationship, for example, seems to vary wildly from episode to episode.

[Nikov]

I'm rather enjoying it so far. We should all expect a little lead-up time for the writers to get back in their funk for these characters, although I myself find nothing wrong with any of the episodes.

[Grakelin]

I don't think they have to bribe congress for that. The copyright is owned by the corporation, so until the corporation goes under, it is well within its rights to renew the copyright. This is important, because the corporation WOULD go under if it couldn't do this.

It's not a matter of renewing, it's a matter of bribing congress to unilaterally increase the length of copyright. At this point, it's gotten to what? Life of the creator + 90 years? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. That is insane beyond the point of insanity. The idea that copyright should be even life is excessive, and that it extends another fucking lifetime past that is just mindbogglingly absurd. I cannot put to words just how obscene and ridiculous this is.

Surely you're not suggesting some unfair system whereby a poor defenceless coorperation is forced to create new works to stay in buisness instead of just re-releasing it's extremely old back catalogue ad infinitum. That's madness! :O

Neither of you really understand what you're talking about. Disney isn't making money by re-releasing the old catalogue of Mickey Mouse movies from the 30s and 40s. They're making money by creating new content featuring Mickey Mouse. If they don't hold a copyright on the IP of Mickey and all his Friends, other people will start using him, because little kids love him. And then Disney will lose hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of dollars. And Mickey's character will be tarnished. You don't think it's possible to tarnish Mickey Mouse? It is. It is very possible.

In this case, the copyright holder, the Disney Corporation, is still 'alive', so it will hold copyright over everything it has until it stops paying taxes (because it 'died'). It doesn't need to bribe congress to extend copyright length past a lifetime.

[fenrif]

I don't think they have to bribe congress for that. The copyright is owned by the corporation, so until the corporation goes under, it is well within its rights to renew the copyright. This is important, because the corporation WOULD go under if it couldn't do this.

It's not a matter of renewing, it's a matter of bribing congress to unilaterally increase the length of copyright. At this point, it's gotten to what? Life of the creator + 90 years? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. That is insane beyond the point of insanity. The idea that copyright should be even life is excessive, and that it extends another fucking lifetime past that is just mindbogglingly absurd. I cannot put to words just how obscene and ridiculous this is.

Surely you're not suggesting some unfair system whereby a poor defenceless coorperation is forced to create new works to stay in buisness instead of just re-releasing it's extremely old back catalogue ad infinitum. That's madness! :O

Neither of you really understand what you're talking about. Disney isn't making money by re-releasing the old catalogue of Mickey Mouse movies from the 30s and 40s. They're making money by creating new content featuring Mickey Mouse. If they don't hold a copyright on the IP of Mickey and all his Friends, other people will start using him, because little kids love him. And then Disney will lose hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of dollars. And Mickey's character will be tarnished. You don't think it's possible to tarnish Mickey Mouse? It is. It is very possible.

In this case, the copyright holder, the Disney Corporation, is still 'alive', so it will hold copyright over everything it has until it stops paying taxes (because it 'died'). It doesn't need to bribe congress to extend copyright length past a lifetime.

I assume by "neither of you understand what you're talking about" you mean "neither of you agree with me?"

[eerr]

Disney holds a trademark on mickey, not a copyright.

Kind of a big difference.

trademark because the exact look and feel of mickey mouse is owned by disney.

Copyright protects processes and machines, designs, and theoretically original code.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Disney holds a trademark on mickey, not a copyright.

Kind of a big difference.

trademark because mickey mouse isn't an innovative process or machine.

You're confusing "patent" and "copyright".

I don't think they have to bribe congress for that. The copyright is owned by the corporation, so until the corporation goes under, it is well within its rights to renew the copyright. This is important, because the corporation WOULD go under if it couldn't do this.

It's not a matter of renewing, it's a matter of bribing congress to unilaterally increase the length of copyright. At this point, it's gotten to what? Life of the creator + 90 years? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. That is insane beyond the point of insanity. The idea that copyright should be even life is excessive, and that it extends another fucking lifetime past that is just mindbogglingly absurd. I cannot put to words just how obscene and ridiculous this is.

Surely you're not suggesting some unfair system whereby a poor defenceless coorperation is forced to create new works to stay in buisness instead of just re-releasing it's extremely old back catalogue ad infinitum. That's madness! :O

Neither of you really understand what you're talking about. Disney isn't making money by re-releasing the old catalogue of Mickey Mouse movies from the 30s and 40s. They're making money by creating new content featuring Mickey Mouse. If they don't hold a copyright on the IP of Mickey and all his Friends, other people will start using him, because little kids love him. And then Disney will lose hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of dollars. And Mickey's character will be tarnished. You don't think it's possible to tarnish Mickey Mouse? It is. It is very possible.

So fucking what? Is the "sanctity" of one company's little pet icon worth fucking over society as a whole by unilaterally increasing copyrights to obscene lengths (because they can't just bribe them to say "Hey, you know what? All the shit made by Walt Disney will never run out of copyright, everyone else gets a decade!")?

In this case, the copyright holder, the Disney Corporation, is still 'alive', so it will hold copyright over everything it has until it stops paying taxes (because it 'died'). It doesn't need to bribe congress to extend copyright length past a lifetime.

The creator, Walt Disney, is dead. It's his life it's measuring from.


Edit: Also, people can already use Mickey Mouse in their own works, so long as it's satirical. Which, ironically, means they can more or less only use it in a mocking, degrading fashion.

[Jackrabbit]

I fail to see how the inability to use Micky Mouse in any works I create should I wish to is fucking over society as a whole. Surely there are more important thing society has to worry about that who's making the shitty Micky Mouse cartoons. Is it because increased copyright for one person is unfair? I still don't see it is exceptionally important enough that it's having as much of a negative effect on society as the words 'fucking over society as a whole' implies.

[ed boy]

quite frankly, the who concept of having a fixed term for copyrights of X years is a bad idea, with its major merit being that it is a hell of a lot more enforceable than any other policy.