[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The only compelling reason I need is that it's my property; not society's. It doesn't have to serve a greater good in order to gain protection. Protecting the property of individuals is reason enough. But if they feel the need to engage in legalized theft, then so be it. Not a thing I can do as an individual to prevent it.

But it isn't your property. Ideas cannot be property. We make this law framework to pretend that ideas can become like property (meaning they are owned by one person alone). However, laws trying to accomplish something do not make it so, no matter how close they come. One could argue that any business model that hinges on monopolizing a mental concept or execution thereof is increasingly broken when that monopolization can no longer be enforced due to the rise of piracy and the ineffectiveness of DRM and other tools.

Furthermore, protecting the property of individuals is not necessarily a globally acknowledged goal, imaginary property or not. This is a greater philosophical argument that I would not so readily assume is already won.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Disney doesn't rely solely on public domain. They've created their own works and purchased the rights of other works to create their media. If Mickey never makes it to PD, society is no worse off.

What's really at stake here is money. Third parties are chomping at the bit to get their hands on Disney's catalog so they can turn around and repackage it for a profit; with no attempt made to create a derivative work.

Disney does not rely on public domain alone, but they very heavily draw from older stories while profiting from products created by the company nearly a century ago. Why should Disney be allowed to profit from their unchanged works they made back in 1930? I see no difference between them and the chomping-at-the-bit third parties. The difference is largely academic. Nobody alive at Disney actually authored those cartoons.

Money isn't the only thing at stake. Culture is also. Obvious and embedded ideas in our global culture aren't really owned by anyone, and attempting to control or profit from that phenomenon strikes me as evil and malignant.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The free market is a wonderful place. If someone has something you want; buy it. Not sure what the Doyle estate was charging, but they clearly had no problem with derivative works; just as long as the rights were purchased. If you're not satisfied with the terms or the seller refuses to sell, then create your own product.

Oh, yes, go create something new, but don't forget that if you create something too close to a copyrighted work you will be sued or charged with a criminal offense. And don't forget that some artists agree that creativity is largely remixing already created ideas. You better make sure you do a good enough job hiding your inspirations, or you'll find yourself accountable to incredibly powerful monopolies who demand even more money on top of their earned profit.

A world where we must ask permission before expressing ideas created long before us is a terrible world to be in. In this light, the creative world looks like a rapidly shrinking canvas for new artists, who must dodge already created works like ancient but still deadly mines buried among the hard road to creating a new piece of art.