Why public domain

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not real sure what the purpose this post is suppose to be. In general, I don't click on links if I don't know what they are linking to.

The spammers are getting sneakier.

That user made 4 very similar posts that I thought were weird, but I didn't realize there were links in them. Reported as spam.

You are going to edit the links out of your post?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

The spammers are getting sneakier.

That user made 4 very similar posts that I thought were weird, but I didn't realize there were links in them. Reported as spam.

You are going to edit the links out of your post?

The moderators are fast around here. They already did it.

Rule #1 for safe computing, never click on a link unless you are sure where it goes. The url's weren't obvious spam sites, but they made little sense in the context of the conversation.

[MGlitch]

I still want to know why it’s okay for Disney to profit off public domain but not allow their works into the public domain.

Though I’d be interested in seeing if they tried to crack down on someone using the same source material for their own work which bore some passing semblances to what Disney ended up with, and just how successful they’d be in doing so.

It’s not like Disney actually created any of the Disney Princesses.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I still want to know why it’s okay for Disney to profit off public domain but not allow their works into the public domain.

Though I’d be interested in seeing if they tried to crack down on someone using the same source material for their own work which bore some passing semblances to what Disney ended up with, and just how successful they’d be in doing so.

It’s not like Disney actually created any of the Disney Princesses.

It does seem to be a bit of an intellectual disconnect.

It's said that man is a rational animal, but in How We Decide, the case is made that man is a rationalizing animal. We make decisions based on some emotional reason, then try to rationalize the decision. That's one reason I've hit the Property word so hard. It's a very emotional word. It invokes our inter two year old - "Mine!". Small children establish "Mine" reflex very, very early.

It's pretty unlikely that Disney would go after someone using the same source material. There are tons of Snow While and Sleeping Beauty books and movies out there that have been made over the years.

Earlier in the thread, someone made the point that copyright holders don't really care about the silent flicks but will try to keep the talkies from going into PD. I would suggest that the line has moved from talkies to color.

One other thought. The real issue isn't the copyright of a specific work, it's the derivative works. The amount of money an old work will pull in fades fairly quickly over time. However the value of franchises tends to hold for a much longer period of time. The movie "Doctor No" isn't particularly valuable, it's a bit cheesy and hasn't aged well, but the Bond franchise is still going strong. Same for Star Trek and Star Wars. Disney's value isn't so much individual movies, it's actually the Disney name, the Disney franchise if you will.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Disney isn't going to fight to keep it's properties from going into PD, but even the iconic Snow White and Sleeping Beauty have limited value as individual films.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The url's weren't obvious spam sites, but they made little sense in the context of the conversation.

They aren't looking for clicks, they even tried hide the link text by making it white (worked on me, I didn't see the links).

It doesn't matter whether the urls are legitimate sites, the purpose was to increase search engine results rank, which is an abuse of this site.