• Landrin201@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Corporations when some dude steals a copy of a 30 year old movie: 😡

    Corporations when they steal billions from their workers salaries every year: 🤑

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Taking money for a 30-year-old movie is pretty much government-assisted stealing, if I’m honest. Copyright in the USA originally had a term of 14 years.

      • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Here’s the thing: copyright term includes the life of the author plus a fixed period. So the works you and I nobodies produce will eventually become public domain after we die. HOWEVER, and this is just my underatanding of the laws and I’m definitely not a lawyer, not big name IPs because they are not registered under the human author, but a corporation that is both a person under the law and effectively immortal. So even if it’s two thousand years after George Lucas dies, Star Wars will still be copyrighted as long as Disney exists, and even if Disney dies, part of the process of corporate “death” is liquidation where they sell their IPs to the next asshole corporation.

        Am I wrong? Please correct me if I am.

        • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Afaik you are not correct. Copyrights for a corporation also have an expiration date.

          Except – The expiration date can be extended by just continuing to use the IP – Ever wondered why movies get remakes/reimaginings every 30 years or so? We meme about them being “Out of ideas”, but really it’s so they can hold down their copyright.

          • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except – The expiration date can be extended by just continuing to use the IP – Ever wondered why movies get remakes/reimaginings every 30 years or so? We meme about them being “Out of ideas”, but really it’s so they can hold down their copyright.

            No, that’s just wrong. At one point, early Marvel contracts had clauses that allowed the movie producer to keep the contract going if they continued to put out movies. When Marvel got big (post-Iron Man), they had been trying to claw back those contracts. That’s why Fox kept putting out an X-Man movie every few years, and Sony kept putting out Spiderman.

            But, that has nothing to do with copyrights, and all of the remakes are just shit that Hollywood does for memberberries.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Using an IP doesn’t extend the date at which it becomes public. Movies get remakes etc because they want to make more money. Some movie companies have deals around IP with the original IP owner that revert if they don’t use the IP, but that’s separate from when the IP goes public. Mickey Mouse for example will become public domain in 2024 unless disney successfully lobby for the length of copyright to be extended (again).

            https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jul/03/mickey-mouse-disney-copyright-expiry

            Winnie the Pooh recently became public domain for example, which is how we got the god awful 18+ movie “blood and honey”.

            Sony for example have exclusive movie rights to the Spider-Man IP in perpetuity as long as they release a movie every 5.75 years at most, otherwise it reverts back to Marvel. That’s why they keep rebooting it and releasing sequels no matter how garbage they are - it’s better for them to release a trash movie that bombs than it is to lose the most valuable superhero IP in the world.

            Now that Stan Lee is dead, however, there is a countdown set for when the Spider-Man IP becomes public domain, and no amount of movie or comic releases will delay that.

    • mayo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We also pay for their bailouts and subsidies. Piracy is ethical.

      • acastcandream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        See, this is the stuff I was talking about in my other comment. Too many arguments in favor of piracy are these little one off, no context one-liners that sound snappy/true, but lack nuance.

        It’s not that you don’t have a point, but you need to actually tease this out a little more, and also addressed the fact that most people who are pirating are not doing it for that reason. There is always unwillingness by piracy advocates to acknowledge that some people do it just because they want free shit. It’s not a moral stance, it’s not a social movement, it’s not a financial necessity, they just don’t want to pay for it. 

        I definitely don’t ever pirate. I would never use transmission or the pirate bay to acquire what I want. But if I did, which, of course I don’t, I would admit it’s because of a combination of 1) convenience, 2) the ability to deploy where I want it, more specifically 3) so I can put it on my server to stream on my network, and 4) because of fears of the programming being taken down, such as streaming services.

        I would also be lying if I said I wouldn’t do it because I don’t want to spend money on it. That’s just me being honest.

        My point being that whatever your reasoning, I just don’t like when people throw out bullshit excuses or examples that only apply to .001% of people engaging in piracy.

        • mayo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree about snippy one liners but I’m also not invested in this topic enough to go deeply into it. Maybe not until someone engages. I just browse lemmy, I share thoughts. I’m just here to hang out. If I want to learn then I read a book. I try not to take this site or myself on this site too seriously. I also like how you responded in somewhat long form. I like that a lot, and I’m hoping one day I can join tildes.net and participate in longer conversations.

          That said, I don’t think it’s a bullshit response and I don’t think I need to elaborate on how subsidies work or how deregulation has siphoned money from the public and given it to private companies. For me, it doesn’t matter why an individual chooses to pirate or how they justify it. I see it as a form of protest and anyone participating in the protest for any reason is doing it for the right reason.

          I think it’s interesting that people jump to the defence of copyright, or question the morality of piracy on the grounds of what damage it might cause to creators and publishers. Tax laws - old (austerity taxes), new (lowered corporate taxes), and proposed (100% inheritance tax) are much more significant than any effect piracy will ever have. This is what we should be debating and arguing about, not with piracy. It’s peanuts.

          • acastcandream@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you go through my comment history, you’ll see that I repeatedly am in favor of most piracy arguments. I am just talking about bad defenses here. 

            I’m also not sure why you’re saying you don’t really care yet took the time to write all of that. 

            • mayo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok. I’m not trying to get into anything here with you. I’ve said what I wanted to say.

        • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is always unwillingness by piracy advocates to acknowledge that some people do it just because they want free shit.

          Some people do it just because they want free shit. I don’t care. It’s still good.

          • acastcandream@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you’re missing the thrust of my point. I am not passing judgment on whether or not it’s OK to want free stuff. I am saying making excuses to pretend you don’t undermines the pro-piracy position.

            • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You were responding to:

              We also pay for their bailouts and subsidies. Piracy is ethical.

              There was nothing in this statement to suggest the motive behind piracy had anything to do whether or not it is ethical. There was nothing in this statement to indicate that the author was engaging in piracy for purely altruistic reasons.

              I don’t see how the author was “making excuses to pretend [they] don’t” “want free stuff.” And I don’t see how arguing that piracy is ethical is implicitly arguing that you only do it for altruistic reasons. I think bringing up the selfish motives behind piracy without prompting is an implicit admission that there is a connection between selfish motives and the ethics of piracy. And finally, I think parsimony is effective.

              • acastcandream@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I was widening the scope of the conversation and discussing a frustration, not accusing them of anything. I can see why my intentions were unclear though, that’s on me.