This iconic mouse is weeks away from being in the public domain
www.deseret.com
Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when ‘Steamboat Willie’ enters the public domain

This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when ‘Steamboat Willie’ enters the public domain

  • KISSmyOS@lemmy.worldEnglish
    133·
    11 months ago

    We badly need to update our IP laws.

    Yes, by abolishing IP as a concept entirely. You cannot own an idea after you published it, that’s insane.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      41·
      11 months ago

      I mean, IP isn’t all bad. I can’t start selling p*ss in a bottle and label it with Coca-Cola branding. I’d get sued into oblivion. In this particular case, that would be a good thing. It also means that if you find a rat in your coke, you can sue CocaCola. If there were no IP, everyone could make it and it would be almost impossible to know where it came from.

      There would also be no widely distributed film, TV, music, books, etc. Do you really want to live in a world where WattPad is the engine of literature?

      • KISSmyOS@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        11 months ago

        If you sell cheap knock-off cola and slap a Coca-Cola label on, that isn’t copyright infringement, that’s a trademark violation.
        I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about how it’s ridiculous that a corporation earns money every time someone plays a song, because they bought the “rights” to that song, whose author may or may not even still be alive.
        Getting rid of copy-right entirely would remove the predatory publishing industry and make art non-commercial again. Small artists will still be able to live from their art, by performing on stage or being employed (or self-employed on contract) and paid for their time while creating content.
        Indie movies, games and music will still exist. Fast and Furious 12 will probably not get made. I fail to see any negative, unless you’re Disney.

        • lad@programming.devEnglish
          31·
          11 months ago

          I’d say that while copyright was intended to incentivise creativity and allow authors to share without suffering from rip-offs (at least it seems like it was), it evolved into something completely abominable. But that’s not the only one thing in the current state of world that did.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          11·
          11 months ago

          Games? Name five great FOSS games.

          Games and other media that are labor intensive to make and trivial to copy will not exist without some form of copyright.

          Live music and theater will still exist, as well as physical works like paintings and sculptures. But say goodbye to professional books, films, games, comics, and scripted television (I guess we’d go back to sports and live variety shows). No more professional journalists, nature photography, audiobooks, podcasts…

          Trademark is a form of intellectual property but never mind that. Who do you think is paying for all those indie games and films?

          Sure, we can talk about some major reforms, but you seem to be fine throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

          • KISSmyOS@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            Linux, Firefox, LibreOffice, etc. are all labor intensive to make and trivial to copy.
            People buy games on Steam they could easily pirate cause it’s more convenient.
            And you could just turn AAA games into a subscription model or charge for accessing the server per hour.

            Novels can be financed through donations to pay for the author’s time, or by a government grant.
            Journalism lives from being the first to publish something, by the time it’s copied it’s already worthless, even in today’s model.
            Science journals and text books should be financed by the state and made available for free.

            My takeaway message here is: Removing copyright won’t remove the demand for media. If supply dries up because current distribution models aren’t profitable, the demand will drive other methods of monetization.

            • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              11·
              11 months ago

              You should find it telling that you couldn’t name even one game.

              Software that functions to meet a practical need is a tool, not media. People will fund ongoing work to develop and maintain tools that they use. People very rarely fund incomplete artworks.

              We don’t have to speculate what models may exist, because they already do. Movies like Veronica Mars and the Babbadook (and Atlas Shrugged III) do get made through crowdfunding, but they still depend on marketing and distribution from companies that rely on a degree of exclusivity. So I guess there’s… Big Buck Bunny?

              For games, there’s itch.io, patreon, etc. for gripping titles like Yandere Simulator and Liberal Crime Squad. But charging to access a server for a non-exclusive game? Better to just start my own server. Then I can charge for the game myself.

              I already mentioned WattPad.

              Copyright is still the best way for small creators to make a living. I personally would not want to live in a world where government grants would decide who gets paid for their art and who has to set up a donation system and hope for the best. Art would be worse, not better. Companies would still need artists to help sell their products, and there would be a fantastic supply of starving artists at the ready.

              Commercials and billboards would become pretty banging, so I guess there’s that.

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      59·
      11 months ago

      I don’t feel that this would have the positive impact you seem to think it would - and I cannot even picture how you think this would be a positive.