Mickey Mouse and public domain????

[Safari Steve]

When 'The Cat in the Hat' was about to fall into public domain, Mrs. Guiesle (sp?) had her late husband's books republished under a new copyright and licensed apparell companies. That solved the problem. I was under the impression that as long as the creators (or their heirs) were still using the characters actively, the characters could not fall into public domain. What a shock this story is to me.

 

[raidermatt]

Dan- The framers of the Constitution did not ban slavery, and there was prayer in schools. If we were to consider their judgement absolute, these things would still be around.

The Internet provides the little guy with the ability to distribute his creative works inexpensively. Extending copyright timeframes does not stop this from happening. It merely allows the creators and their heirs to maintain control. If the public wants it, its available. The only real question is who should be able to profit by it.

 

[DanG]

I wasn't particularly advocating a position one way or another, just providing some historical perspective on the origin of intellectual property protections and a link to reasoned, thoughtful analysis on the issue. Take it our reject it as you wish.

An historical perspective is useful as a contrast to a contemporary debate where the course of business and conduct seems to define a baseline of rights for many. The question, to me, isn't particularly whether Disney can or even should have extended IP protection for its movies and characters. Far more interesting is the question what should be the correct duration and breadth of these IP protections. Or whether certain or any IP rights should be extended given the competing interests of stimulating the creation and disclosure of ideas for the public benefit, how to best incent this creativity, and the public benefit to use, expand on and improve ideas or limited expression, that are, after all, extremely ephemeral.

Also interesting is the dynamic where large influential entities acting solely in self-interest and to the detriment of the general public can get Congress to hop around on command like 525 dancing bears. But that's a whole different issue.

 

[raidermatt]

...companies have successfully extended the duration of copyright several times this century, to the detriment of consumers.

Sorry if I took this to mean you were advocating a certain position. Given the last phrase, I thought you were making your position clear, but I'll take your word that this was not your intent. The fact that the article you posted was written by the mouthpiece of one particular side was also a factor...

Also interesting is the dynamic where large influential entities acting solely in self-interest and to the detriment of the general public can get Congress to hop around on command like 525 dancing bears. But that's a whole different issue.

True, but there are certainly more important issues that illustrate this problem.


Lessig's intentions maybe noble. Frankly, I don't know much about his background or any conflicts of interest that might indicate a bias for personal gain. What I do know is that the only reason this issue is being pushed at this time is money. Group A wants to make money from things created by group B. Group B wants to make that money for themselves. I'll side with the Group that did the work.

You are right in that historical perspectives are important to any analysis. However, how the decision impacts the real and current world is the ultimate bottom line.