Of all the new uses of Mickey we’re now seeing, one thing I really hope is to see Mickey showing up on murals in kindergartens and daycares. This is really what it means for the character to be entering the public domain. He’s has been a part of American, if not world culture for decades, but that part of the culture has been illegal for people to use.

Finally, after nearly a century of Disney getting absolute control, that cultural element finally belongs to everyone. Now parents and caregivers can paint images of Mickey and make kids happy without having to get permission from Disney.

It’s tricky. Sometimes changing things truly is a creative act. A big portion of Disney’s portfolio is from retelling European fairy tales: Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, etc. It would be hard to argue that they added nothing of value when they remade those fairy tales. In many cases, people wouldn’t recognize the original stories because Disney changed so much.

OTOH, it seems like bullshit when tiny elements are changed. For example, the Conan-Doyle estate has sued because although Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain, they said that was only the stories where he was aloof and analytic. They said that in stories published in the 1920s he was more capable of empathy, so any depiction of Holmes where he was empathetic infringed on their copyright.

If I were on a jury deciding this sort of thing, I’d require that there be something brand new. For example, Beauty and The Beast is public domain, and as long as someone is making an animated movie based on that story the default assumption should be that they’re inventing new aspects based on the public domain story, not based on the Disney movie. OTOH if they have an animated candle / candelabra, it’s reasonable to assume that infringes on the new character created by Disney.

Bullshit, why even bother then?

Because being creative is enjoyable.

Thirty years from publication.

The original was 14 years renewable for another 14. I like that better. It means that abandonware goes into the public domain faster, but it’s easy to renew a copyright if it’s still being used.

No exceptions.

I disagree. Exceptions for sports and software: shorter. Sports is most relevant when it’s live, and copyright-holders for sports content are much more vicious when it comes to taking down tiny clips of goals or something. So, make a special category that gives them extra protection when it comes to tiny clips in exchange for much shorter copyright terms. For software, it’s essential to be able to maintain old equipment, especially old industrial equipment. That soft of software could be used in power plants, medical equipment, water purification plants, etc. Companies are notoriously bad at keeping that stuff safe especially decades later. Instead, make it public domain faster.

If UFC wants to change the laws to make takedowns quicker and easier, they should be fine with a compromise where copyright for live sports lasts only a few weeks not a century, right?

It seems like it would work because people wouldn’t think they got their value out of their prime membership yet and are reluctant to cancel after such a short time.

Announced just after Christmas, a time when I assume a lot of people sign up for Prime so they can save shipping on presents.

Relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ib889nSZVU

The laugh track, the stereotypes, the lack of humour…

You deserve to be in jail.

Not because of the copyright infringement or whatever, just your choice in what to watch.

Simplify that to “Piracy isn’t stealing”. Copyright infringement (so-called piracy) is very different from stealing.

Sure, if “buying” isn’t permanent despite assurance it was at the time, then copyright infringement is even more justified. But, copyright infringement isn’t and has never been stealing.

Wage theft isn’t theft, it’s fraud.

That’s just one element of theft.

Nah, no need to go to laws, just use a dictionary.

I’m all in favour of people being pedantic, especially in the case of laws.

If you are using the term theft colloquially

I’m not, “theft” is misused all the time. It’s something that the copyright cartels encourage because they get to pretend that copyright infringement is theft. It’s not. We should push back and say theft has to meet certain conditions, and copyright infringement isn’t theft. Nor is “wage theft”, which is a form of fraud.

By buying into the colloquial definition of “theft” and expanding the scope to be any time someone is inconvenienced, you give the copyright cartels power to make people think copyright infringement is as bad as actual real theft, when it’s clearly not.

Not really, theft is theft. Fraud is fraud. Just because something feels like theft doesn’t make it theft.

If it’s theft, it’s theft. If it’s fraud, it’s fraud. It could be either. But “wage theft” is not copyright infringement, which is not theft.

Here’s what California’s Department of Industrial Relations says:

Wage theft is a form of fraud

https://www.dir.ca.gov/fraud_prevention/Wage-Theft.htm

Freelancers may be upset if they’re mistreated, but that doesn’t mean they get to declare they were murdered, or that they were raped, or any other crime that didn’t occur. Theft has a specific definition, and fraud is not the same thing as theft.

What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.

Yes, which is not theft. It’s not murder either. Nor is it blasphemy. It’s just copyright infringement.