this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
489 points (95.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55085 readers
632 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 275 points 1 year ago (10 children)

In my opinion LotR should've already entered the public domain but thanks to Disney well have to wait until 2044 for that.

[–] hh93@lemm.ee 92 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't have the already well-off children go without their steady income that they didn't have to work for...

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well how else are we supposed to encourage people to be related to people who develop intellectual property? It makes sense from a neponomic standpoint.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Believe it or not, some people do work extra hard in order to ensure their descendants have an easy life. I'm not weighing in on whether that is wise or not but it is definitely a thing.

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, and that's why white people are richer than black people today, even though slavery ostensibly ended 200 years ago. It's time that we outlaw this behaviour.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

you're gonna get downvoted but no amount of downvotes will change the fact that black people weren't allowed to own things in america until most things were already owned by white people.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Necromonic, even.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago

Embracer is gonna be the next one to beg for an extension.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reasonable takes like this hurt daddy's profits... is u a domestic terrorist?

[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] sadreality@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obama coming out of retirement to authorize this drone strike!

"We will not stand by while our national security interests are being assaulted by the axis of evil"

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Axis of evil” was a GWB and Cheney thing. I don’t think Obama ever used the term.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

i threw that in to keep satire level headed... this aint about Obama but rather the US government behavior overall.

[–] EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It may as well be, they’re endorsing all sorts of shit content lately (like the Golem game, or the ring of power)

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

The books go into public domain in 20 years. Now that Christopher Tolkien is out of the way (who tended to block a lot of stuff, for better or worse) , the current heirs want as much out of it as they can.

20 years might sound like a lot, but that's about as much time as between the Peter Jackson movies and now.

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I haven't played the gollum game, but rings of power was actually good tho

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do yourself a favor and don't play the Gollum game

It's really bad

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Honestly I don't really care, I'm more inclined to strategy and 4x games.
If you don mind me recommending a game, check out against the storm, it's a city builder with rogue like elements, and it came out recently out of early access, it's reaaaaally addicting

[–] EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I will take your advice and check out this game

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Do let me know what you think of it!

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Better than the Mines of Moria, though... Barely, and only at times.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Tbh they seem to be a lot more "hands off" with non-canon stuff, which I think includes all of the LOTR/middle earth licensed games, and that's not a bad thing imo.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

Don't worry, they'll manage to get it extended again before 2044.

[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Such optimism that it wont be extended again.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, will become public domain in literally 13 days.

[–] crit@links.hackliberty.org 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Only because it's not as important for them to keep it, they make a lot of money from other properties

[–] DrPop@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

It's not just about money, but their image. Nintendo does the exact same thing with fan games that make $0.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, they can't extend any further. The copyright has a hard expiration at the end of 2023.

[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember thinking that in 1998 too. It is too late to extend copyright for Steamboat Willie before it expires but that does not mean that corps like Disney won be fighting tooth and nail to extend it again in a few years when things they actually care about are expiring.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, Mickey is definitely going to be something they'll fight for in the future.

I don't find it probable they'll succeed in convincing Congress that copyright life should be significantly greater than a century, since that's nice and round and excessive, but we live in a corporation-first capitalist hellscape, so who knows?

[–] crit@links.hackliberty.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

They have, but they didn't. And it's not a foregone conclusion that they'd succeed. The longest copyright lifespan is currently 105 years from what I read, and I wonder if they could grease enough palms to convince people it should be longer than a century.

We're already in "excessively long" territory, and Congress still has a few reasonable people left, so I'm not convinced it would happen.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You can't just extend copyright indefinitely. It's not like a patent, where you can make minute changes and claim it's a new product. The original works have a copyright limit of 95 years after the first date of publish (thanks Disney and other corporate lobbyists).

If we go by The Return of the King, it was published in 1955. That means the words, the story, the settings, and the characters will be public domain in 2050. Steamboat Willie, on the other hand, was published in 1928. That means it expires at the end of this year. Unless Disney can convince Congress to change copyright law again, these copyrights all have hard expiration dates.

ETA: Disney might have a case where they can claim copyright on the information they added or changed from the original works, just like how they can still claim copyright over Mickey after losing Steamboat Willie.

And I'm sure they will, because fuck society, amirite? /s

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Works made for hire are 95 years from publication. LotR is not a work for hire, so it goes by life of the author plus 75 years. It goes public domain in 2044.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

They already do. Winnie the Pooh is public domain but not Disneys version the one everyone thinks of.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Demand reform.

30 years from publication, no exceptions.

[–] BadlyDrawnRhino@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think an argument could be made to set it to the date of death of the author. I agree with the other guy that it should only apply to commercial works though.

I also don't think that the copyright should be transferable. The trading of ideas is an absurd concept to me. But then us humans do a lot of absurd things so I guess it's just par for the course.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People have a right to culture. If you grew up with a story, it's yours now, no matter how dead the author isn't. Past works are the foundation for everything you can make.

And if the purpose of copyright is not to encourage new works, burn it to the ground.

[–] BadlyDrawnRhino@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's an oversimplification. All works are derivative to some extent. There's a huge difference between taking inspiration from something, to taking the characters and setting from something. Particularly if you're intending to make a profit.

If an author makes something that a large number of people enjoy, why shouldn't they be able to make money off it for the rest of their life? Why exactly should an individual give up the rights to their creation simply so that someone else can use their characters and their worlds?

To be clear, I'm talking solely on an individual level. I think the system we have where a corporation can own an idea is very broken. I'm also talking about this from a perspective of the world we currently live in. In an ideal world where money wasn't the endgame for survival, ideas would flow more freely and nobody would need to care. But that's not the world we live in.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't sell something to a million people and still own it.

Copyright is a gift, from us to them, to encourage new works, for us. Why would that mean some old fart gets to stop people making new stories for the characters they grew up with? They're our characters, now. We bought them. That's what the money was for.

And if thirty years of revenue with zero additional labor required somehow isn't enough - oh well.

Can you imagine making your argument for any other industry? Why in the name of god would art be the place where doing real good one time is a ticket to retirement? Not farming, not medicine, not engineering. Homeboy wrote a song once, so he gets to ride the gravy train until he fuckin' dies.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your buying the stories not the ownership of all the ideas.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Word salad.

Again: the explicit purpose of copyright is to provide the public with new works. After a fixed limited time, all works belong in the public domain. If you want copyright to be anything but that, I would rather not do copyright at all.

It's not a right. That name is a lie. It's a monetary incentive. And once someone's made their money, that's that. It's ours now. The deal worked.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

And for commercial purposes only. If you're not making money off of it, you should be able to use it however you want.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Apparently it did for a short while in the US, but not anymore.

[–] PropaGandalf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well public domain or not this changes nothing for the sailors of the high seas.

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

not exactly. You can of course still get existing works by pirating them.

But if the Tolkien works entered the public domain, anyone could use them for any creative purposes freely. And yes, a lot of the new material would be trash. But some excellent works would appear to.

A good example of this is Lovecraft's works and the Cthulhu Mythos, that although not public domain until recent years, Lovecraft encouraged others to use his own creations on their own stories, thus expanding the literary universe of his own creation. Some stories are awful, but there has also been a ton of great works based on Lovecraft's creations that couldn't have existed otherwise.

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Also Sherlock Holmes. Now, the BBC might have done a terrible job, but a lot of other people have written great stories because Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain

Another character in the public domain is Zeus, and the rest of his family. Liked Disney's Hercules? Supergiant's Hades? Netflix's Blood of Zeus? Riordan's Percy Jackson? Only possible because of public domain.

LotR should've already entered the public domain

Where is the petition to sign up for?