On 10/5/05, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 05:16:23PM -0700, m ike wrote: > > On 10/5/05, Michael O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I didn't know this, thanks. It seems ridiculous to me that Disney has > > > > to do such things in order to maintain their copyright. I cannot image > > > > that anyone's life or happiness depends on their being able use for > > > > free a Disney character for profit (or non-profit). > > > > > > Someone could quite easily build a competing "Disneyland" if all the > > > characters were in the public domain > > > > If I understand you correctly, you are stating that competition is a > > good thing, and that limiting the duration of a copyright fosters > > competition? > > > > Best, > > Mike > > Not competition. Creativity. > > Say I decide that the Disney "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons are mindless > pap (that's too kind). I want to do a cartoon version of my own going > back to the beautiful illustration style of Shepherd and using Milne's > magnificent prose. > > I'd get my ass sued. Why? Disney bought the copyright to the Milne books > (written in the 1930s, over 70 years ago), and the copyright has been > extended twice. > > Why is this so? What is just about it? How does it benefit society? > Disney didn't have the original genius of creating these wonderful > characters. They bought a piece of paper from the Milne heirs (OK, not > an entirely bad thing ... A. A. Milne _might_ have approved) and based > their schlock on it. What is their moral right to prevent anyone from > reinterpreting these stories effectively forever? > > Copyright expiration isn't about competition. It's about letting new > generations of artists have access to the common cultural base so that > they can create new things.
So you can't do _that_ project. So what? Do something else. Best, Mike -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
