Do we really need yet another copyright extension?

  • 75 Replies
  • 11448 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« on: May 18, 2018, 09:18:45 PM »
Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right—basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?)—for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don’t have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
At this rate, will anything make it into the public domain ever again?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2018, 01:47:51 AM »
There's probably going to be a point when companies decide enough with the public domain, we're doing away with that shit, we're keeping the copyrights forever.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2018, 02:22:04 AM »
Copyright was intended to help producers of media secure an income from their work until they can produce new works to earn money on. It's noice to see that the focus of copyright laws is remains to support the poor creators of media.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2018, 04:25:11 AM »
Rights being protected for 100+ years is fucking ridiculous. It hurts art creation instead of helping it.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2018, 06:37:18 AM »
Rights being protected for 100+ years is fucking ridiculous. It hurts art creation instead of helping it.

How are the corporations supposed to turn a profit on their products within a 100 year span? Who would be motivated to create something that they do not have full control over until at least 50 years after their death?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2018, 04:57:22 AM »
Rights being protected for 100+ years is fucking ridiculous. It hurts art creation instead of helping it.

How are the corporations supposed to turn a profit on their products within a 100 year span? Who would be motivated to create something that they do not have full control over until at least 50 years after their death?
Lol
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2018, 11:21:01 AM »
Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right—basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?)—for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don’t have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
At this rate, will anything make it into the public domain ever again?
Should it ever reach the public domain? Is the entire idea is to support freeloading hippies that wish to profit off deadman's great deeds?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2018, 11:58:03 AM »
Should it ever reach the public domain? Is the entire idea is to support freeloading hippies that wish to profit off deadman's great deeds?
Who's loss is it? If it's truly a great deed it should be popular enough that no one can just straight up copy it and claim it's their work. If they can it shows that not enough people knew about the original work, so that's an opportunity for the work to spread even if the wrong person might be credited (but hey, dead people can't complain and living people need to earn their livelihood). And if people think they can take the same base work and improve it, let them. That's how progress is made. It'd be boring if there's only ever allowed one attempt to make one work great, and once that attempt has been made and the original creator has passed away the work can never be improved again, or in other ways translated to fit into new societies, cultures and people.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16287
  • Djinn
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2018, 12:05:02 PM »
Copyright should be done away with as far as derivative works go.

Vampires and zombies are such a big genre because bram stoker and George romero completely botched the copyright process.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2018, 12:59:54 PM »
Copyright should be done away with as far as derivative works go.

Vampires and zombies are such a big genre because bram stoker and George romero completely botched the copyright process.
I disagree. There is a certain line beyond which derivative works are just too dissimilar, but it's just so fucking easy to copy something and make a few changes and profit off of someone else's effort, often at the expense of the person who made it. A lot of the times, famous artists rip off lesser known artists, and the issue is that if they don't give credit, they won't be given the attention they deserve.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2018, 01:34:57 PM »
Whose lose? Man's. By demoting behavior that drives true progress and new works. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, to save the toe!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2018, 06:12:04 AM »
Whose lose? Man's. By demoting behavior that drives true progress and new works. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, to save the toe!
That's exactly what copyright does. It's good as long as the original creator is alive, it gives them the incentive to create something to begin with. But once they're dead? It only leads to stagnation. Humans have the capability to get bored by the same stuff over and over again, so new stuff is going to show up naturally. Meanwhile old stuff that's either imperfect, unknown or outdated is not allowed to be improved or explored or tested. And often the copyright is so ambiguous that it locks down a whole concept regarding an idea, rather than a specific depiction of an idea. As Crouton said, vampires and zombies as a concept could had been copyrighted if there hadn't been a mess-up. There's been loads of cheap clichéd and unoriginal zombie and vampire movies, but there has also been plenty of interesting movies and series that use these concepts to explore what it means to be human, what it means to be alive and various morals and ethics. Copyrights also cover names and visual designs, which is good for protecting brands but it also makes it a lot harder to reference other works or to use similes that compares objects or people in the work to objects or people from another work (which is often done to convey information about the character without having to contain it all in the work). For example calling a character Lucifer to give the hint that the character is devilish. Or calling them Hercules, or Sherlock.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2018, 12:23:02 PM »
Whose lose? Man's. By demoting behavior that drives true progress and new works. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, to save the toe!
That's exactly what copyright does. It's good as long as the original creator is alive, it gives them the incentive to create something to begin with. But once they're dead? It only leads to stagnation. Humans have the capability to get bored by the same stuff over and over again, so new stuff is going to show up naturally. Meanwhile old stuff that's either imperfect, unknown or outdated is not allowed to be improved or explored or tested. And often the copyright is so ambiguous that it locks down a whole concept regarding an idea, rather than a specific depiction of an idea. As Crouton said, vampires and zombies as a concept could had been copyrighted if there hadn't been a mess-up. There's been loads of cheap clichéd and unoriginal zombie and vampire movies, but there has also been plenty of interesting movies and series that use these concepts to explore what it means to be human, what it means to be alive and various morals and ethics. Copyrights also cover names and visual designs, which is good for protecting brands but it also makes it a lot harder to reference other works or to use similes that compares objects or people in the work to objects or people from another work (which is often done to convey information about the character without having to contain it all in the work). For example calling a character Lucifer to give the hint that the character is devilish. Or calling them Hercules, or Sherlock.
You've made a lot of mistakes in your above post, but they aren't really worth harping on as they are aside my point.

It does protect until the creator is dead, you are correct. This is hardly incentive to create new works. Still, we can go steal works and resell them with no incentive to instead build something new. You point out a lot of cases for this, and there are more.

An incentive to create new works would be if you couldn't steal existing works and sell them AND you got to own new works. Without an indefinite time span for protection, copyright law is just a cruel joke to make it seem like the working class and below own the means of production, when in actuality they do not.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2018, 11:59:46 PM »
I still can't figure out your position on this.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2018, 06:29:13 AM »
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2018, 10:49:52 AM »
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2018, 11:14:13 AM »
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.

I do. I made my life as an art creator. Although everything I created became property of my clients, the work product itself was a stand alone entity. Intellectual property. No different than any other thing that can be owned. A book, a song, software.
Should the McDonald's Golden Arches copyright expire?

You know how I got around Copyright Law? I created original work.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2018, 12:17:26 PM »
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.

I do. I made my life as an art creator. Although everything I created became property of my clients, the work product itself was a stand alone entity. Intellectual property. No different than any other thing that can be owned. A book, a song, software.
Should the McDonald's Golden Arches copyright expire?

You know how I got around Copyright Law? I created original work.
I do not object that your art is not affected by copyright law. It doesn't mean it can't negatively impact other forms of art. For example, copyright laws are a bitch for many narrative arts. Many great works of theater, cinema and literature have been influenced by older art in ways that would not be permitted if copyrights hadn't expired. Imagine Shakespeare still being copyrighted. And they're especially a bitch for music, where countless artists have faced issues for sampling, which is, like, the basis of entire music genres. Not to mention the fact that most of blues is the same few traditional songs, in a period when copyright laws weren't really enforced, and early rock artists didn't give much of a shit about taking other artist's creations and transforming them either. Entire genres have been based on recycling older or traditional works, and a lot of them are transformative enough to be valuable and original works, but not enough for copyright laws to consider them as much.

As for the McDonald's logo, I don't see this as relevant. First of all, McDonald's can just renew it. Second, the issue with logos is that companies can rip them off to mislead buyers. So I don't really see them as being the same with other works of art in terms of copyright.

What is a REALLY stupid idea is JD's idea that somehow unless works weren't copyrighted everyone would just copy older works. First of all, copyright laws still don't prevent unoriginal art from being created. Just look at Hollywood. It's just that big companies can rip things off as much as they want because they already own the copyrights to them, while independent creators don't have the same luxury. But it's not like without copyright years after the creator is dead artists wouldn't be incentivized to make original art. I'm so tired of all those artists on the radio ripping off Beethoven, said no one, ever. Artists always have an incentive to create original art works, and the ones that don't aren't really disincentivized by copyright anyways. Oh, by the way, I'm using "original" in its true sense, not in the copyright law sense (courts and legislators don't really understand the concept of something incorporating elements from other art and still being original for some reason). Copyright laws are really mostly valuable just for protecting the artists, after the artist has died they really don't do much more than making heirs rich and hampering creativity. Copyright laws can't inspire you.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2018, 01:05:16 PM »
Copyright laws are really mostly valuable just for protecting the artists, after the artist has died they really don't do much more than making heirs rich and hampering creativity. Copyright laws can't inspire you.

Let's say that someone creates a physical property that people will pay to interact with and someone else creates an intellectual property that people will pay to interact with.
The creator of the physical property dies and wills the property to someone and the creator of the intellectual property dies and wills that property to someone. 

Does society have a right to strip these properties from their new respective owners and freely feast upon them?

What if the asset is owned by a corporation and 25% of the shareholders die?
Can the heirs inherit the stock or does 25% of the property become public domain?

Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
 

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2018, 01:30:22 PM »
Quote
Let's say that someone creates a physical property that people will pay to interact with and someone else creates an intellectual property that people will pay to interact with.
The creator of the physical property dies and wills the property to someone and the creator of the intellectual property dies and wills that property to someone. 

Does society have a right to strip these properties from their new respective owners and freely feast upon them?

You're equating physical property with intellectual property. Not even the lawmakers who legislated the silly copyright laws we've ended up with tried to equate these two. For the record, I'm not entirely for copyrights expiring directly after someone dies. I think it's fair to let them chose to will the rights to someone to profit for some time after their death. But that time is already too long, and companies insist to lobby to make it even longer.

Quote
What if the asset is owned by a corporation and 25% of the shareholders die?
Can the heirs inherit the stock or does 25% of the property become public domain?

No, the rest of the shareholders keep the rights. How does 25% of something become public domain? That question is kind of like asking whether 25% of the company goes to the state if 25% of the shareholders die, it doesn't make sense.

Quote
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
Lazy, untalented people like most blues artists, most hip hop artists, most jazz artists (genres all based around giving a new spin on an old idea or incorporating large chunks of an older work in a new one), countless theater directors who make their own versions of classics, and numerous filmmakers, painters, and writers who incorporate elements of other works in their art or adapt these works? What copyright laws consider to be new and what is actually new are two different things, a lot of the times copyright laws just obstruct art creation. In fact, they often lead to MORE unoriginal art instead of less, because it incentivizes companies like Disney dig up franchises whose creators died ages ago, for which they still have exclusive rights.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2018, 02:58:29 PM »
You appear to be saying that basing a new work on someone else's existing work is innovation.
That is actually pandering. It's why every rap song sounds the same and every country western song sounds the same. Everyone competing to be the most generic.

And if you want a copyright to last forever, create a corporation to hold the asset. A corporation never dies.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2018, 03:18:50 PM »
Quote
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
Lazy, untalented people like most blues artists, most hip hop artists, most jazz artists (genres all based around giving a new spin on an old idea or incorporating large chunks of an older work in a new one), countless theater directors who make their own versions of classics, and numerous filmmakers, painters, and writers who incorporate elements of other works in their art or adapt these works? What copyright laws consider to be new and what is actually new are two different things, a lot of the times copyright laws just obstruct art creation. In fact, they often lead to MORE unoriginal art instead of less, because it incentivizes companies like Disney dig up franchises whose creators died ages ago, for which they still have exclusive rights.
You are most correct; copyright laws are not strict enough and should be adjusted so that they protect what is actually new rather than considered to be new under current law.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2018, 03:33:12 PM »
Quote
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
Lazy, untalented people like most blues artists, most hip hop artists, most jazz artists (genres all based around giving a new spin on an old idea or incorporating large chunks of an older work in a new one), countless theater directors who make their own versions of classics, and numerous filmmakers, painters, and writers who incorporate elements of other works in their art or adapt these works? What copyright laws consider to be new and what is actually new are two different things, a lot of the times copyright laws just obstruct art creation. In fact, they often lead to MORE unoriginal art instead of less, because it incentivizes companies like Disney dig up franchises whose creators died ages ago, for which they still have exclusive rights.
You are most correct; copyright laws are not strict enough and should be adjusted so that they protect what is actually new rather than considered to be new under current law.
I'm gonna try to put it politely:

Are you insane?

Ah shit, I failed.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2018, 03:38:40 PM »
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2018, 03:51:18 PM »
You appear to be saying that basing a new work on someone else's existing work is innovation.
That is actually pandering. It's why every rap song sounds the same and every country western song sounds the same. Everyone competing to be the most generic.

And if you want a copyright to last forever, create a corporation to hold the asset. A corporation never dies.
Of course it can be innovation. It can also be plagiarism, but it isn't necessarily. A lot more innovative art is based on previous works than you think. Have you not heard that Picasso quote about it? So many innovators have done it. Nothing is really "original", everything is influenced by previous art works to various degrees. Sure, sometimes (read: all too often) artists go overboard. However, copyright laws don't police what is generic anyways, since that wouldn't make legal sense. They police what is perceived to be someone "copying" someone else. Never has a pop song been hit with a copyright claim because it sounded too generic.

Also sampling can be absolutely transformative, to the point where the new work isn't even "influenced" by the original in the usual sense, but legislators still can't get it through their heads and make exceptions.

Also all rap songs don't sound the same. That's coming from someone who doesn't really appreciate the genre very much. When people say that about a genre, it's usually because they're not very familiar with it or interested in it. All rock sounds the same to people who don't like it. All classical sounds the same to people who don't like it. All jazz sounds the same to people who don't like it. Don't tell me Flying Lotus, Drake and Death Grips sound the same after an honest listen.

Oh, here's a question (it's a trap, answer at your own risk  ;)): Can you name some of your favorite classical performers and why you like them? Do you have any favorite bands?
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2018, 04:03:37 PM »
You appear to be saying that basing a new work on someone else's existing work is innovation.
That is actually pandering. It's why every rap song sounds the same and every country western song sounds the same. Everyone competing to be the most generic.

And if you want a copyright to last forever, create a corporation to hold the asset. A corporation never dies.
Of course it can be innovation. It can also be plagiarism, but it isn't necessarily. A lot more innovative art is based on previous works than you think. Have you not heard that Picasso quote about it? So many innovators have done it. Nothing is really "original", everything is influenced by previous art works to various degrees. Sure, sometimes (read: all too often) artists go overboard. However, copyright laws don't police what is generic anyways, since that wouldn't make legal sense. They police what is perceived to be someone "copying" someone else. Never has a pop song been hit with a copyright claim because it sounded too generic.

Also sampling can be absolutely transformative, to the point where the new work isn't even "influenced" by the original in the usual sense, but legislators still can't get it through their heads and make exceptions.

Also all rap songs don't sound the same. That's coming from someone who doesn't really appreciate the genre very much. When people say that about a genre, it's usually because they're not very familiar with it or interested in it. All rock sounds the same to people who don't like it. All classical sounds the same to people who don't like it. All jazz sounds the same to people who don't like it. Don't tell me Flying Lotus, Drake and Death Grips sound the same after an honest listen.

Oh, here's a question (it's a trap, answer at your own risk  ;)): Can you name some of your favorite classical performers and why you like them? Do you have any favorite bands?
Weird Al! His ability to make something amazing based on other peoples work was incredible. In most cases his talent exceeded that of the original authors IMO. @Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2018, 04:05:26 PM »
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Do we need a billion Marvel movies with the same characters, or reboots and sequels and remakes for every second old successful movie or series? Probably not more than we need more takes on Sherlock, but we still get them, regardless of copyright laws, because the companies that churn them out already have the copyrights. Besides, even newer takes on Sherlock Holmes or anything that's already done to death can bring new elements to it. Most newer takes on Sherlock have little more to do with the books than just the name.

As for the living off of someone else's labour argument, are you under the impression creating a new work of art that incorporates elements or influences from an older one requires no additional effort? Where would humanity be right now if no one was allowed to use anyone else's ideas, for fear of "living off of someone else's labour"? Sometimes it's more than that and people really are freeloading, but that's just a necessary evil. It's not that important if it can no longer harm the creator.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2018, 05:58:57 PM »
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?

I have never heard Myley Cyrus.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2018, 06:51:12 PM »
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?

I have never heard Myley Cyrus.
I envy you!
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Do we really need yet another copyright extension?
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2018, 09:21:52 PM »
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?

I have never heard Myley Cyrus.
She was that girl licking a sledgehammer everyone talked about for some reason a couple of years ago or so.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)