Antipirating commercials make me want to pirate more, anyone else have that happen?

[Phil Clark]

If nothing is allowed to ever enter the public domain again...it's pretty much dead.

This completely flies in the face of your earlier statement...

Yes, many very old works are in the public; and one day, if there isn't a change to the law, some stuff with enter the public domain here again in 2019. Some stuff being everything from 1923. But nothings going into the public domain again here until 2019.

So which is it?

Creative works will still go into the public domain. Yes there will occasionally be things that are exceptions to the norm. But those are exceptions that should not to be used to judge/condemn the whole public domain process.

[Surtur]

Because the vast majority of people in the movie industry aren't multi-millionaires like executives and A-list actors, but regular people that have a passion for film, making ends meet and supporting their family.

Maybe they should take the people actually struggling to make ends meet then and put them in the commercial.

[Simbob4000]

This completely flies in the face of your earlier statement...

No it doesn't.

So which is it?

Creative works will still go into the public domain. Yes there will occasionally be things that are exceptions to the norm. But those are exceptions that should not to be used to judge/condemn the whole public domain process.

Yes, if there isn't another change to the law then stuff from 1923 will enter the public domain in seven years...but whenever it gets time for stuff to enter the public domain here, the laws are changed.

[Phil Clark]

No it doesn't.

It kinda does... But whatever.

Yes, if there isn't another change to the law then stuff from 1923 will enter the public domain in seven years...but whenever it gets time for stuff to enter the public domain here, the laws are changed.

Then as it stands right now, under current law, public domain is not dead, nor dying. It is working exactly the way it always has, with a few exceptions where people have fought their or their ancestors works entering the public domain. But as I said, exceptions or the odd legal battle won does not change the Public Domain as a whole. Not unless the lawsuit also modifies the law itself, which it hasn't as far as I know.

Laws are always subject to change, and there are always loopholes that someone will find. But you cannot make a blanket statement that Public Domain is dead while also presenting statements that show that it is working as it has all along.

[Simbob4000]

It kinda does... But whatever.

No, it kind of doesn't. The other post also has something about if the law is changed again. And since Disney is a driving force behind the law changes...so Mickey doesn't enter the public domain. And since we're starting to draw near a time when that can happen again. It's pretty likely changes to copyright law will start coming up in the next few years.

Then as it stands right now, under current law, public domain is not dead, nor dying. It is working exactly the way it always has, with a few exceptions where people have fought their or their ancestors works entering the public domain. But as I said, exceptions or the odd legal battle won does not change the Public Domain as a whole. Not unless the lawsuit also modifies the law itself, which it hasn't as far as I know.

Laws are always subject to change, and there are always loopholes that someone will find. But you cannot make a blanket statement that Public Domain is
dead while also presenting statements that show that it is working as it has all along.

Yeah, no, it doesn't work like it always has. Stuff entering the public domain in the past was a fact, now it's more like a theory. In theory stuff will start entering the public domain here again in six more years. But then there's Disney to stop that kind of thing from happening. And like I already said, now things can be removed from the public domain.

[jesse_custer]

Watching movies uploaded to Youtube isn't an different than downloading movies.

Tell that to people who have been busted for downloading stuff vs. those who only watch YouTube. Has anyone gone to jail for watching YouTube?

The difference is obvious. Downloading means you own something on your computer.

[Simbob4000]

Here's kind of a funny thing:

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2013?

Under the law that existed until 1978 … Works from 1956

[Phil Clark]

No, it kind of doesn't.

Regardless of your assertion that it doesn't, it really does. You are arguing that your own conflicting words are right in both instances. Adding an arbitrary if does nothing to change the fact that as of this moment, those two statements conflict with each other.

And since Disney is a driving force behind the law changes...so Mickey doesn't enter the public domain.

Ok, this is an incomplete thought and statement. And who is behind attempts to change Public Domain is irrelevant to the fact that it hasn't been changed to eliminate public domain, only to extend the timeframe before something enters the Public Domain.

It's pretty likely changes to copyright law will start coming up in the next few years.

Ah, there's the rest of the incomplete statement... And this is pure conjecture. You are guessing that Disney will attempt to extend the timeframe. There is no solid evidence of it that you have presented as of yet.

Yeah, no, it doesn't work like it always has. Stuff entering the public domain in the past was a fact, now it's more like a theory. In theory stuff will start entering the public domain here again in six more years. But then there's Disney to stop that kind of thing from happening. And like I already said, now things can be removed from the public domain.

It has always been a fact that things will and do enter the public domain. Arguing that it won't ever happen is based on guesswork that Disney will not only attempt to extend the timeframe again, but that they will also be successful at it.

And as I said, one instance of something being removed from the public domain does not mean that anything can be removed from the public domain. It is an exception, not the rule.

You really seem to get enjoyment out of arguing hypotheticals since you seem to think that they are harder to dispute. But hypothetical isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about current law. Until it changes, that is all we can seriously discuss.

Now, if you want to talk about the possibility of extraterrestrial life outside of this solar system, I will be happy to discuss that hypothetical with you any time.

[dupersuper]

What does this have to do with my comment? I was referring to a statement that copyright laws were moralizing to americans. Copyright is not that. It is doing what is morally right by the creators of content. You sir, took my response out of context of the string of the conversation. Poor form there. Poor form indeed.

I really don't think I did, but talk to me like you're Captain Hook some more and you may convince me.

[Phil Clark]

You, cut me to the quick.... Peter.

[Simbob4000]

Regardless of your assertion that it doesn't, it really does. You are arguing that your own conflicting words are right in both instances. Adding an arbitrary if does nothing to change the fact that as of this moment, those two statements conflict with each other.



Ok, this is an incomplete thought and statement. And who is behind attempts to change Public Domain is irrelevant to the fact that it hasn't been changed to eliminate public domain, only to extend the timeframe before something enters the Public Domain.



Ah, there's the rest of the incomplete statement... And this is pure conjecture. You are guessing that Disney will attempt to extend the timeframe. There is no solid evidence of it that you have presented as of yet.



It has always been a fact that things will and do enter the public domain. Arguing that it won't ever happen is based on guesswork that Disney will not only attempt to extend the timeframe again, but that they will also be successful at it.

And as I said, one instance of something being removed from the public domain does not mean that anything can be removed from the public domain. It is an exception, not the rule.

If they aren't letting new things enter the public domain, they're destroying it.


It is no longer a fact that things will enter the public domain anymore...not in the US anyways. It well only become a fact once things are actually allowed to do so again. So far, every time we've gotten close to
Mickey Mouse entering the public domain the copyright law gets extended again. Yeah, it's a guess Disney will attempt to extend the copyright again; it's a guess based on them doing in once in the 70s, and then again in the 90s. It doesn't make any sense for Disney not to try and extended the copyright law again, and I'm having a hard time seeing them being unsuccessful. The funny thing is the company that was build on the public domain is now a driving factor in killing it.


Exception? How do you get that it's some exception? It was a ruling that lets congress pull stuff from the public domain. An exception would be like, how, It's a Wonderful Life was pulled from the public domain in the 90s.

[Vibranium]

If they aren't letting new things enter the public domain, they're destroying it.


It is no longer a fact that things will enter the public domain anymore...not in the US anyways. It well only become a fact once things are actually allowed to do so again. So far, every time we've gotten close to
Mickey Mouse entering the public domain the copyright law gets extended again. Yeah, it's a guess Disney will attempt to extend the copyright again; it's a guess based on them doing in once in the 70s, and then again in the 90s. It doesn't make any sense for Disney not to try and extended the copyright law again, and I'm having a hard time seeing them being unsuccessful. The funny thing is the company that was build on the public domain is now a driving factor in killing it.


Exception? How do you get that it's some exception? It was a ruling that lets congress pull stuff from the public domain. An exception would be like, how, It's a Wonderful Life was pulled from the public domain in the 90s.

so Disney, Mickey Mouse being the cornerstone of their brand, doesn't allow him to enter the public domain...from a business standpoint, that makes sense

what do you propose happen?? do you think someone else can put a better spin on Mickey Mouse

Im trying to figure out what your issue is

the public domain is exactly that...public

if a company owns something or purchases rights or creates something, it is within their purview as a company to make sure that property doesn't get used by anyone else to garner profit