Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVH
I understand the point of the original post, but I must respectfully disagree. The issue is much deeper than that. Yes, it is true that copyright holders can make poor decisions, like the Alamo, but the world we live in already abuses the copyright owners enough. While the law in question definitely protects intellectual property of large corporations, but it also protects the property of the little guy. Just look at the controversy with Harper Lee for an example. Imagine a world where the estate of Tolkien would be forced to agree to a theme park by any large corporation that wants to build it. Imagine if Warner Brothers could just hire anybody to publish Harry Potter books and make them into movies and theme parks without Rowling getting anything. While we as fans would love to see all of our beloved media at any instant, there must be protections. Obviously, if the copyright holder wants to relinquish rights, they are free to do so. Whether you like it or not, Mickey Mouse and Disney are one in the same. It would simply violate the 'that ain't right rule' if another company could make Mickey Mouse cartoons.
|
I see where you're coming from but could not the law be updated for specific examples rather than having one size fits all?
Furthermore, an appropriate timescale would be something like author's life + 20 years. (Which I think it may be until Disney forces the issue again) Why would anyone else need to benefit from work they did not actually contribute to? The 20 years may be tacked on so anyone dying young could have their kids be taken care of for their childhood. Beyond that, people should work and that spark is dulled when people and corporations rely on the past and do not innovate.
Would not quality across the board improve? Perhaps more of a general increase over time as opposed to immediately, but the standard will keep getting higher. Right now, all we are seeing are endless spin-offs that benefit the corporation. Disney, for example, is dead and so is his son.