Damn...EVERYONE is getting redpilled on Disney
Other urls found in this thread:
priceonomics.com
twitter.com
>I wish copyright law was destroyed so mega corporations could easily make movies with old characters whenever they please
I hope you fags get what you want and indie films, artists and everyone gets their shit jacked by Disney.
You'd have to be mentally ill to think that post is making a point. That is the output of a very confused and disordered mind.
^low IQ cringe post
Copyrights are not meant to last beyond the copyright holder's earthy demise.
Why do you faggots want Peter Parker to continue in the MCU? Iron Man is fucking dead and the only thing that character ever did in the MCU was holding someone's hand and be someone else's sidekick. The MCU has no room for little boys anymore. This is women territory.
>WTF WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL IDEA,!! REDDITBROS!
lmao then get ready for the Disney death squads to take out anyone so they can steal your ideas. They did it to Jim Henson and they'll gleefully do it to artists. Look at the Epstein shitfest, they'll make it look like suicide too
How in the fuck does this sentence make sense in your head?
I don’t get it.. they do realize that Disney is the reason modern copyright laws are the way they are
How does it not make sense? All the people screeching about MUH COPYRIGHT LAW will be the first to bitch when Disney starts stealing other people's copyrighted shit.
hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaa
The kitchen?
based 5th dimensional shitposting
>stealing other people's copyrighted
Now read back what you just wrote.
I'll wait.
you sure don't
Why do people want things to go public domain so bad?
Do they really want Spiderman to get like 300 movies a year and everything to be canon?
It’s normally that you can have a copyright for 50 years and then it expires.
How would this fuck over Indie filmmakers?
>a based tranny
It’d be the same as Dracula
Sounds based
>indie films, artists and everyone gets their shit jacked by Disney.
They'd do a better job than Kennedy and Johnson. Those indie film makers would probably have more respect for the OT characters.
If spider-man was public domain, Raimi could make Spider-man 4
these sony shills are desperate
He can now
Copyright BTFO
Doesn't matter if something is public domain or not, youtube has killed the concept of that.
What people want is to make more money off of their youtube videos.
Yeah, it's so horrible when big studios make movies about Sherlock Holmes and Dracula, this would definitely be worse if other characters ended up being usable
Yea? Anyone can make Tarzan or Frankenstein or what not. Most of them suck, so it's pointless to make these movies, but they keep trying. Imagine if anyone could make a spider-man movie. Most of them would suck, but hey look we got RDJ as sherlock holmes, that was fun, right? Sometimes we get good adaptations of public domain work. And mel Brooks Robin Hood is great. So...yea.... fuck disney.
He's explaining why dissolving copyright law is a bad idea because that protection would be lost, dumbass. You people are so paranoid about businesses controlling the law that you literally ask to give up your own rights thinking you're spiting them. Unbelievable. What, do you want to make mickey mouse t-shirts? I hope it's worth it when Disney literally is able to swoop in and finish HBO shows and fucking new book series and try their hand at any idea in the world for absolutely free.
THIS IS A SONY BOARD NOW MOUSEKEKS
it would be the end of the now old entertainment powerhouses, use some lateral thinking
>canon
Nothing is ever canon except within itself. The movies are canon only to the movies, and even then only to a small subset of the movies. The more that's made, the more you're allowed to pick and choose what you like
>Trans Artist of the Day
Damn they kill themselves so often they have to get a new one every day?
Maybe I overstated it by saying all copyright laws but Disney lobbied for extension of corporate copyright claim, once in the 70s and again in the 90s
priceonomics.com
That already is happening with the Game industry taking over as the dominant form of entertainment and Youtube killing Television.
based
UHHH
YOU SHOULD LOVE 1000 YEARS OF MICKEY MOUSE
>no copyright laws mean there would've been 6 different GoT series running concurrently
...
okay I'm really at a loss for why this would be a bad thing.
No, that's a DC movie.
I want Spidergay. I don't care what you want.
copyrights are anti-competition. I thought you capitalists loved the free market.
based tranny
Never thought I'd agree with a fucking tranny
I still don't fully understand how Disney manages to skirt copyright law. Jew money I guess?
are you retarded
there's no reason for copyright to last 100 years
no one is going to kill you so they can use your ideas in 50 years
>no one is going to kill you so they can use your ideas in 50 years
... don't give them ideas
stupidfag here. what exactly is all this? i thought copyright law/public domain was after 100 years.
Excuse me. Technically that is a Veritgo title. It is not part of the DC Universe. While a few Vertigo titles, like Sandman and Swamp Thing have crossed over with the DC Universe, that was because those were based on pre-existing DC characters. Vertigo was mostly a creator controlled label for stand alone titles.
see disney keeps jamming laws through that extend copyrights whenever anything they own is about to go public domain.
They're not breaking any laws, they just keep on paying for the law to be rewritten to extend
disney keeps extending the copyright law
>trans artists
unironically dilate OP
You retards don't understand copyright law.
Indie films don't rely on characters that already existed you fucking moron.
>arguing against current copyright laws so Disney can do something "good"
Fucking holy kek. Honestly Disney is based for doing what they did to copyright laws.
>you'll never live in a world where copyright laws were not a thing and Disney had the ability to steal from everyone without discrimination
Thank fucking God. They shot themselves in the foot.
ITT: Eurokino. Seen any good European films lately?
>Pic related, just watched this great one.
No, I'm pretty sure Edgar Rice Burroughs estate still has the rights to Tarzan. At least I vaguely remember that's why he never appeared in a Kingdom Hearts game after the first one.
>its too bad this mega corperation cant make money off of something someone else paid for
And to top it off, the original Spider-man would be public domain if not for Disney. So seeing them lose anything because they can't just copy it is a victory to me.
can someone tell me why copyright laws are bad? why should you be able to make and profit off of something someone else put hard work into develop, create and establish a fan base for just because X amount of years have passed?
all you need to know about copyright law:
>be disney
>one of your IPs is about to go public domain
>spend millions lobbying to pass laws to extend copyrights
They're not bad. They were once great. Until a certain company paid millions and millions of dollars to sway courts in their favor. Guess what company that was?
The tweet in the OP was written by a tranny, meaning they're likely a communist as well so it should be self evident why they're against copyright.
A tranny is only against copyright until it's their personal OC that they feel is threatened. But trannies would love a world where they could have every character ever be written into a tranny by some fucking nobody and it get a show. They just can't stop with only fanfics.
why would a show that only .001% of the population cares about get aired?
dissolving copyright law would mean only what actually has an audience would get made
Disney's model is based on nostalgia and iconic characters, if anyone could make a movie with their old characters, Disney would suffer. God knows people don't watch those live action remakes for the "cinematic quality"
considering disney had to buy their own tickets to aladdin and the lion king, disney is likely finding that model isn't sustainable.
hence why they have one of their useful idiots talking about how disney is responsible for the state of copyright law. disney wants to be able to make mega-budget remakes of everyone else's IP since their own well is poisoned/dry.
I'm not saying it will get aired, retard. I'm saying if anyone even so much as resembles their OC they would go into full Autism mode. It has happened time and time again.
copyright is a monopoly, it's a necessary evil. medicine and inventions only get protected for 30 years and that's enough to make a lot of money. wtf should movies be treated differently? not to mention that walt Disney is dead so why should disney get the exclusive rights to his work?
>tfw you will never be born into a universe where Yea Forums argues about whether disney GoT or Sony GoT or Netflix GoT or HBO GoT or Amazon GoT is worth watching since they all compete and air every sunday at the exact same time
Damn! Everyone is getting redditpilled
I mean yeah, it really boils down to me wanting to make my own mickey mouse memorabilia. Fuck you if you got a problem with it, walt
How much money is Mickey Mouse animations actually raking in? Disney Land wouldn't suffer. It would still be Disney Land.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying at all. I don't even think you are either.
>make a business
>can pass busisiness down to kids, and them to grandkids
or
>make a comic book character
>after 30 years lose control and millions of copycats start putting out media and merchandise making mine essentially worthless
why is one okay and the other not?
merchandise, dipshit
and im legit curious, i dont know much about business, i really want to know why one is ok and the other isnt
I do. Plenty of mentally ill trannies think people steal their OCs all the time. They would fully be for copyright laws at that point but if one of their favorite characters is threatened they cry "B-but my copywrite!"
For Disney it is more about devaluing the character than about actual money it rakes in. If Mickey was a PD character, like it could have been without the expansions, other companies would be able to legally do Mickey cartoons which would not sit well with the Disney brand.
Which would be primarily still done through Disney just for the Disney name because of the parks, dipshit. But instead they spend a billion dollars building some terrible addition to their park on the 4 billion dollar franchise they bought.
I'm pretty much certain you have no idea what the words your typing mean.
Explain. Go ahead. It's very fucking plain English.
nigger, 99.9% of the reason disney merchandise is so lucrative is because you can only buy it from disney
Fuck kikes and fuck disney.
That's not true at all. The Disney brand attract people like Hitler attracted National Socialists.
I'm saying you're typing gibberish, my friend who is trapped in a chinese room, and I am attempting to get you to explain what you're saying.
It's not gibberish at all. This coming from the dude that says "your typing mean." Get the fuck out of here, retard.
It would basically be like Sherlock Holmes. If a big company has a good idea for a movie or video game, they could make it without any hassles and success would be based on the merit of it alone as a film or video game. Independent producers are in the same domain. Look at teh video game series of Sherlock Holmes made by a small indie company, something like that would never have been made if fat kikes had been sitting on the IP for decades doing nothing with it.
because typically you can only buy it from disney parks. so when disney makes some limited time deal to sell some cheap bullshit elsewhere, people freak out.
do you really not understand this concept?
ITT: people who think putting a limit on extending copyrights is the same thing as eliminating copyrights
>implying they'd let Raimi make another film after Charlottesville
So you didn't understand what the words in mean.
I mean, that was clearly a typo. Whereas you are spewing literal gibberish and getting angry people aren't instantly understanding your word salad.
a single idea/invention/creation is not a business that can just be passed down from family member to family member. you are advocating for meal tickets for some random great-great-grandwhateverthefuck who never even fucking met the guy.
you can start an actual business with your creation (t shirts, prints, etc) if you are so keen on having a more stable source of income.
The Disney brand itself is what sells merch. What you think without those laws there will be 20 other Disneys and people will be confused as to which is the real one especially in the age of information? You'd still have fanatics totally dedicated to Disney and they'd be able to put their own twist on existing stories to "Disneyize" them creating even more fans. You want Akira? Disney has you covered. Godzilla? We got you. Anything under the rainbow it's yours and it's straight from DISNEY
>I mean, that was clearly a typo. Whereas you are spewing literal gibberish and getting angry people aren't instantly understanding your word salad.
Point out what is gibberish and not understandable.
but why though, why is A that i put hard work and sweat into creating okay to pass down in my family, but not B? i created it, i did all the work, why in 30 years should you be able to profit off of that?
>Extends copyright laws while making money off stories already in the Public Domain.
>Point out what is gibberish
all (you)r posts that mention trannies.
What is so hard to understand about it? Trannies support current copywrite laws because they make their own OCs and post them on the internet. Meanwhile if you fuck with their favorite franchise for not bowing to the mouse who made the very laws that protect Sony, they get pissy. How is that hard to understand? OC means Original Character, by the way. If that's what your gripe is. But it's totally okay that Disney stole The Lion King from Kimba, right?
without copyrights no one would be able to tell what is and isn't disney merchandise.
You're almost guaranteed to either be too young, ESL, or both to remember these, but people actually thought this stuff was official WB merchandise. Or didn't care. Either way, huge amounts of money was made off someone else's IP.
Oh I see. You're just using "tranny" as a general pejorative rather than "a person who thinks they need surgery to change their status in a social construct." That's what was throwing me.
Yes, they would. By the people running the fucking company.
Yikes. Sorry I took you seriously. My mistake. I thought you had gripe with my logic and not my hatred towards your kind. Have sex.
well, yea, my gripe was "what the hell does transgenderism have to do with anything."
But hey, you're a young and stupid kid who thinks, somehow, the people running the company would matter when the market is flooded with identical copies of all of their products and they can't make any money off them.
Boy I wish I was young like you. How naive you must be to believe trannies are so innocent. I was once like you.
probably read again. The jab at trannies might be too subtle for you though.
People tend to see things in binary states these days.
If you think the Disney redpill boat is new, you've been under a rock. Everyone knows Disney is a fucked up company run by people who steal shit and fuck children, but they're so large that most people shrug and go with it because they feel there's nothing to be done.
Why are people so upset about this, the best Spider-Man movies were not even in the MCU.
Friend, I assure you, no one thinks pizzagate is real outside of a very small subset of lolcows.
it was sad we couldn't get more fat, non-bathing conspiracy theorist neckbeards to raid more off-brand chuck-e-cheese's though.
no they could make a human with spider like abilities
Spiderman would be trademarked
Oh so you really do understand English sort of.
>using tranny as a bad word
>rather than a person who wants to change their "social status"
>this is somehow a "jab" at trannies
What? You literally just defined what trannies do. That's all. How is that a jab?
>have character
>buy rights from marvel because they need $
>produce movies
>some shit
>still gross 700+million each
>should lose any future rights just because time
it used to be 25, where author could extend it to 50 if he was still alive
disney lobbied politicans to extend it to 80 then 100 years and given those rights from people to faceless corporate entities making it so they can own everything forever
its more than I'm confused that you're such a pussy that you'd limit your pejorative vocabulary to a group of people that, for all intents and purposes, don't exist.
and then act like you're a badass for doing so.
I'm not a badass by any means nor did I claim to be one. I still don't get what you mean. What was the pejorative phrasing I missed out on?
haha holy fuck actually read .
It's not a fucking social construct though. Or are you just quoting their logic?
>being this dumb and new
... okay kid...
Disney is literally JIDF
No really. Please explain your line of thought. I explained mine out for you, did I not?
My line of thought is you barely have any understanding of what words mean and just ignore words if you don't understand them or their context. That punctuation befuddles you and the idea of one person speaking to the state of mind of another, third party, is a completely alien concept to you.
at this point I'm pretty much certain you have autism. actually fucking read
"Tranny" has pretty much just become the standard insult to attack someone's masculinity on here regardless of their actual gender. Mostly replacing cuck.
What's hilarious is people think it would make a difference. Little mermaid is public domain yet there aren't 1000s of movies, TV shows & merch about it. People will still only buy the stuff with the Disney logo on it & completely ignore the rest
In what way have I used or misunderstood punctuation? Are you implying because it's quoted? No really I don't get it.
>haha ignorant retard
>no I won't explain retard
>new, underage!
You are a special kind of pretentious fuck.
cuck at least made sense, considering the amount of people it could (and does) apply to.
calling someone a tranny may as well be calling them a bluegum.
u mean Sony? u fucking dolt lol wtf
ideas are spooks
Friend, I'm not explaining because I'm not sure how. is completely clear if you have a native understanding of english and/or a functional theory of mind.
at this point I'm just amused at watching you writhe at the fact you've been identified as ESL/new/young/stupid, and laughing whenever you prove it further.
I understand what it means but what does it have to do with anything?
25 seems very short to me. There's still series that have been running for over 25 by the original author. 25 years after their death is fine
>I understand what it means
You clearly don't. Develop some self-awareness.
Go on and explain or else I won't.
Well, it's the same as calling a man "girl". It's not so much trying to imply he's actually a girl as that it's meant to imply they're extremely unmanly.
insults are only effective if they can actually apply to someone. cuck works because most people watch and get off to porn. do most people think they need to mutilate themselves to change their status in a social construct? Do most people hold true any brand of tranny logic? Of course not. So calling random people "tranny" is, effectively, just making up an insult on the fly and spewing it at people, then interpreting their reaction of bored/pity as "the fluoride stare."
Its autism, is what I'm getting at.
>you're a retard
>why?
>cause you are lmao basic english u failed
>I'm trying in perfectly fine English and I don't understand what you're getting at. It has nothing to do with the mastery of the English language
>LOL U RETARD IT CLEARLY DO LRN ENGLSH
Like I said over an hour ago, my wetback chum (nice fake ID by the way), all that was throwing me was your use of an incredibly specific term as a general pejorative. Your posts make perfect sense if you swap "tranny" for "faggot," "nigger," or "cuck." In the sense you're just a moron.
Oh. I get it now. In other words you had nothing to bitch about. What's wrong with calling scum what they are? It's not a fake ID, faggot. I used my phone to post and image of my passport. What did you expect me to load a one time picture to my PC from my phone just to prove you wrong? You're literally arguing semantics. Nothing to do with the actual argument. Just the one word I used. You're beyond pathetic.
Or I'm saying your posts made no sense until I realized you were using "tranny" as if it had no meaning.
Then once I understood that, your posts went from total gibberish, which was potentially interesting, to just stupid.
I mean fuck nigger, how can you not understand how disney makes money off being the only people who can sell/license merchandise? How can someone really be that dumb? And then go on to explain how removing all copyrights wouldn't affect disney, and I quote, "because the people running the fucking company" would know what is and isn't a knockoff?
Aw look at him. He got called out and rekt now he tries to make an actual argument once he realizes he can't just call me a nazi. So cute. I already explained why Disney would maintain their merchandising. It's not hard to follow the chain of command in a company and you'd know who the REAL AND TRUE Disney was. Sorry you can't comprehend that. Now you're the kiddo and I'm the 28 year old. What "pejorative" are you going to fall back on now?
Where does sally look for the ball first?
Up your ass because that's where you like to put things.
imagine being autistic enough to believe this is something resembling a comeback.
But this is TOTALLY a comeback. He's autistic! >Remember that word I said?
>"Pejorative?"
>Remember how I said it was retarded to use? >WELL THIS GUY IS AUTISTIC!
Totally based.
Yikes that was a fucked up format. The point still stands.
you seem to be getting pretty upset, my autistic friend. perhaps calm down and possibly explain how it would matter for the CEO of disney to know what is and isn't a knockoff of his companies merchandise if most of the "disney" products sold are knockoffs?
Because you don't own the rights to a talking mouse with big ears, ever. Retard. It's OC DONUT STEAL of the media industry.
I'm totally fine. It doesn't matter whatever for the CEO to know what is what. What matters is the public to know who the CEO is and what company they're related to.
For example if Walt died everyone heard about it and heard who the next CEO of Disney would be. They'd follow that as it's the legacy. If he leaves the company then a new CEO would be elected and announced. That way people actually know what company is which and who to support.
so what relevance does this have to the idea that, without copyrights, most "disney" products sold would be knockoffs? Because remember, the knockoffs would have identical branding to the "official" disney products. Is that last part what you're not grasping?
No, they wouldn't. Disney would just have to change one thing about their brand and it wouldn't be important. People would know the change especially in this day and age. Disney is center and front of the news and has been for decades. People would know.
it was pretty big news that wasn't WB merchandise. No one cared.
You're also talking about a situation where disney would need to keep changing it's brand and merchandise every few weeks/months in order to maintain margins from a steadily dwindling market that doesn't care enough to keep up with what the "official" disney seal is.
Watch the Orange Fool further extend copyright for his corporate puppetmasters in his second term.
Screencap this.
If the current copyright law had existed back then, Disney would have had to pay to make Pinocchio.
Imagine the spoilers
>Dany dies in HBO
>Dany says shes sorry and everyone forgives her in Disney'
>Dany gets Bukaked in PornHub!
>few weeks and months
Do you not know the original copywrite laws? What the fuck?
Axanar is better than STD. Fuck copyright.
we're talking about a situation in which copyright laws are dissolved/abolished.
it'd be pretty fucking stupid if THAT is what you didn't understand all this time.
Sure they could've. All they would've needed to do was change a letter. Most of that movie was OC anyway.
My whole point was a world where copyrights remained the same as when they were enacted, you fucking retard. How about you scroll back to the original post where I said "copyright laws without Disney." Something like that. I can't be assed. But I'm sure you will.
so you don't understand copyright law, that's pretty fantastic.
So you don't understand history. I'd much prefer that (lack of copyright knowledge(despite knowing I'm right)) than an your understanding on anything considering I doubt it's much.
Probably because he's the only male hero left in the next generation of movies and shows.
copyrights before the 30s were pretty loose and exploitable, my dimwitted friend. Knockoffs left and right. It wasn't even compatible with merchandising.
But doesn't Public Domain mean it's impossible to profit off of the ip in the first place whether you're an individual or a huge corp
That said it's a surprisingly redpilled take for a tranny account
trannies can even be racist and homophobic
gasp
Were they not 14 years? Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're a fucking schizo
>canon
Just because corporations have convinced you that fucking children's entertainment needs to have the same fuckin bar of entry as the Bible doesn't mean that's the way it oughta be.
>But doesn't Public Domain mean it's impossible to profit off of the ip in the first place whether you're an individual or a huge corp
No, it means the exact opposite. It means ANYONE can profit.
again, dude, disney didn't just expand the timeframe, but also the criteria.
Absolutely based.
This is what happened to Conan the Barbarian. Now only shitty games get shat out under the IP when it should be free by now
They're not meant to last beyond 10 years after the creation of the work dumbass. We pretend it's hard to copy your movie so that you get a reasonable window to make your money and then move on to make even better moves, not so you can resell us the same movie over and over again for all eternity.
I don't see why you're so angry that they threw the twitter feminists a bone for like ten seconds of screen time
If they've got that many powered female supporting characters there's no reason not to put them all together for a shot or two
Seems straight forward to me. 14 years with the ability to renew so a total of 28 years of protection. What's so bad about that when you have access to every media 28 years younger than you to warp in your own way.
Yeah, they did. It was explicitly due to Disney that those year required changed. Because of Disney lobbying. This is a known thing that happened. A true part of history anyone can see.
>watching woke garbage
lol
Could you imagine if almost every property had the same copyright rules as Dracula, like you could have multiple different directors all easily be able to make their own artistic vision like Kubrick's Shining or Coppola's Dracula for any property without a shitton of needless corporate red tape and the infantile culture of consumerist soiboys arguing about "canon" and powerlevels and shit at the expense of the artistic merit.
LEARN
TO
FUCKING
READ
YOU UTTER FUCKING IMBECILE
disney did not -----JUST---- expand the timeframe, but ----A L S O---- the criteria
Yes yes I got that after I posted what I did. But can you blame me after shitting on me for countless posts shitting on Disney and you defending it? Now suddenly you're not only agreeing but pushing it further. Wew.
that's how religions start. we could basically have the cult of mickey mouse with everyone contributing to create some epic story that lasts forever.
nigger, you're retarded, and yes I can blame you for being retarded. you have no understanding of copyright law beyond "hurr can no do copy for time!"
The idea I'm attempting to impress upon your silky smooth brain is that copyright law did not used to be some butt-fucked copy of patent law, but a very amorphous and loose concept that, basically, required people to go to court and for a judge to rule one way or another. Disney is not only responsible for extending the timeframe almost indefinitely, but nailing down specifics that don't require a judgement. they literally invented the concept of merchandising, even if they did dick with it until lucas showed everyone how.
THere are millions of creative artists who would make something interesting with the franchise. Just like American McGee did it with Alice in Wonderland
cringe and tardpilled
Again this whole concept is a world where Disney didn't matter in copywrite laws. I know what Disney did to copywrite laws. Everybody knows it. Disney would be a world famous brand with just those 28 years of Mickey and Donald. People would have followed them. People would know which Disney is the real Disney. I think you're just pathetic and can't accept that the American public and the world is more intelligent than you. They know their loyalties lie with.
So you sit there with your impotent rage still holding some grudge that I called people trannies a couple hours ago. Fascinating. Surely you have your priorities straight. I'm not going to read what you typed out. I assume it's a way to try to explain your retardation but that point is long passed. I asked you to explain yourself a long time ago and you resorted to nothing but the "pejoratives" you so very hate.
Again, and for the final time. Have sex. Have a good night, manic trannic.
Friend, you were given an example of a time where [brand] merchandise was a pretty huge fad and no one gave a single shit than it wasn't official [brand] merchandise.
You keep ignoring this because it doesn't fit your fantasy hypothetical where people would hang on disney's every word on what is official merchandise.
Talk to your doctor about mental retardation.
Actually Marvel broke copyright law to keep Spiderman as a protected IP, retard.
Imagine when you sit there and lie through your fucking teeth, insult a person, call them all sorts of names, be a general angry piece of shit, yet call that same person a friend. What a passive aggressive little cunt.
And Disney lobbied against that very same law. What's the point? Don't tell me. Both Sony AND Disney are evil? Wow user you've opened all our eyes. Corporations are evil. Who'd have thunk.
>and lie
>anything that doesn't fit my bullshit fantasies is a lie! LIES!!
see
>Make work of fiction
>becomes popular enough for sequels and merchandise
>Disney notices, immediately shits out corporate checklist sequel within 5 months
>uses stranglehold on advertising and entertainment news to drown out any sequel you try to create
>fills their work with minorities so if you dare to complain you are a racist and the series "deserves a better creator"
>never see another cent while disney gets rich raping your creation
This is why we NEED copyright, megacorporations make a mockery out of free market
>Copyrights are not meant to last beyond the copyright holder's earthy demise.
Why? If I make a character, why can't I pass him down to my kid, and then my kid can pass him down to his kid, and so on? I can pass on my wealth, my estate, my property, but not my intellectual property up until a certain point? What's the point in that?
>stranglehold on advertising
nigger you're on the internet
>no way anyone could keep track of a company if it loses its brand!
>That's impossible!
You don't realize that competition is healthy, do you? Or would you rather everyone at Disney produce the same shit over and over again while collectively drooling over their tablets?
the point is most people don't/won't give a shit, my autistic friend.
WB issued a statement for people to not buy the gangster looney tunes merchandise, because it wasn't official. This caused sales of such merchandise to increase.
the disney sequel is the one that will appear on the 5 sites 99.99% of the internet users actually browse
>making fun of unoriginality
>posting latest mutation of old meme as picture
>WB issued a statement for people to not buy the gangster looney tunes merchandise, because it wasn't official. This caused sales of such merchandise to increase.
The sale of the offbrand or official sales?
They're not. Anyone who says otherwise either never created something of value of their own nor took a basic intellectual property course. There is a conversation as to the length of copyrights, but copyrights themselves are perfectly fine.
there was no official gangster looney tunes merchandise at the time. you should've beeb able to figure that out.
then when WB tried to put out "official" street looney tunes merchandise, it didn't sell at all because people preferred the bootlegs, mostly because they weren't being put out by a massive publicly traded company that needed everything to be squeaky clean. WB got the bootleggers shut down. Then the fad ended.
The scenario where you're imagining copyrights going back to what they were in 1927 means similar situations would happen just about daily.
Not even American and i know thats not how it works. Why are Americans so clueless about their own politics?
If you don't own the rights to an idea you came up with and took time and effort and your own money developing, then you don't own a business you make. Governments should just seize businesses after 30 years, and abolish shit like inherited wealth.
>there was no official gangster looney tunes merchandise at the time. you should've beeb able to figure that out
Not what I asked but okay. I asked if it increased the sales of the fake or if the sales of the real product went up. I don't know. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing.
Seems to me like you might be saying that the real company mentioning the fake company resulted in an increase of sales to the fake one. Simply don't mention the fake ones and sell your brand as fit. You act like current copyright laws somehow stop the production of cheap ripoffs. It doesn't.
an educated populace is a dangerous populace.
hence why the department of education exists
That's right, just ignore 90% of the post because it doesn't fit into your fantasy scenario.
But user there is a PHub parody of GoT.
I wasn't ignoring it at all. It fully went with my post. Did it occur to you that the "bootlegs" were actually original? A new spin on an old property that should have been pb years ago? That's why it made money. By distancing itself from the conventional Disney. If Disney were smart they'd do the same thing.
I don't get the problem. It's not like Disney (or anyone) can't make a new character or a new story or a new genre. It's not like there's a finite supply of shit you can make movies about.
>considering disney had to buy their own tickets to aladdin and the lion king
Citation needed.
and 1927 copyright law wouldn't "protect" a company from having people put "new spins" on their IP and then make money off their IP.
Hence how disney was able to make pinnochio.
This just keeps getting dumber and dumber.
because the ministry of truth told the truth, right?
>hey i took that character you made and spent all your time and money promoting and advertising and shit, and i put a hat on it OC ORIGINAL DO NOT STEAL
Not for a quarter of a century, no. But that seems like a fair amount of time for a person to milk an idea. You think Walt Disney was the only one to come up with cartoon mouse with the iconic ears? Please, buddy. There are too many people in this world to believe that one has an original idea. At that point it all comes down to who has the money to copyright it. I guess that is "fair."
>well i took your hat and changed the logo now its mine
Are you talking about The Lion King?
>well i took your logo and changed the hat now its mine
the copyrights didn't expire on looney tunes either, my incredibly dimwitted friend.
Yes.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you just assuming I'm some WB fanatic?
and this is what IP would look like with 1927 copyright law.
You should know exactly what it has to do with this line of discussion. Or you might really be truly retarded.
i really hope you are just underage. Otherwise, media really has done its work on your brains
You do realize you've just married yourself to an argument that the US department of education effectively educates people, right?
Are you actually the same poster who has just been
>I'm right
>you're wrong
>why?
>because you're a retard
Grow the fuck up and how about you have a civil discussion.
Hang yourself
He’s prettier than all the women in the MCU. The actor can actually act and isn’t an insufferable cunt. I have an idea, erase women for beautiful white twinks, then films would improve 1000%.
I keep calling you an idiot because you keep either not reading posts, forgetting things referenced minutes ago, or restating the same inane bullshit you've confused for truth simply because you came up with it.
>Why are Americans so clueless about their own politics?
They're too busy watching the MCU.
Schools educate people. There is no conspiracy going on to keep you dumb, you are doing that all by yourself.
>kept calling you an idiot
What? I've made just a few posts in this thread and in none of them did you insult me with some sort of casual ass name until that one.
>Did it occur to you that the "bootlegs" were actually original? A new spin on an old property that should have been pb years ago? That's why it made money.
They aren't original, and they made money because they provided something that people were interested in in large part because they weren't original but were rather based on a pre-existing property that other people put time and money into creating and advertising and getting out there. If the bootleggers had made their own original characters, same t-shirts but instead of Bugs Bunny it's some original character, those shirts would have never fucking sold nearly as well, because people recognize Bugs Bunny and not your stupid original character.
This shit irks me to no end because I know a guy who is a talented artist, but all he ever draws is fucking Super Mario and Spider-Man and shit. One day, he was bragging about getting liked on Twitter for one of his "works," so I just kind of asked him "Why don't you come up with your own characters?" His reply: "because nobody would like my stuff." If the only reason people like your stuff is because it has Super Mario on it, then they don't actually like your stuff, they just like Super Mario.
So let me get this right. It's okay for a franchise to hold on to something for 100 years and that be their money maker but for some reason if it were a quarter of a time that's worse? What happens when Mickey Mouse become pb after a hundred years? Does that spell the collapse of Disney? Hell didn't Steamboat Willie just become PB? Where are all the Mickey Mouse ripoffs?
Adding to this. It's up to the consumer to decide what is best for them. They should never bend over for any corporation. The best will survive. Survival of the fittest. This is nature and it will be so for as long as anybody lives.
Copyrights for shit like stories and characters should last indefinitely, not just a hundred years. Come up with your own fucking ideas, asshole.
The irony is palpable. So it's okay for a company to milk somebody else's idea (lets say Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney for simplicity) but it's not okay for an individual to milk said idea? Ideas should be passed down as property for generations? That's hypocritical, user.
>"wait so you can live in that house you paid for but i'm not allowed to break in and squat illegally?"
Correct. You didn't make the idea and didn't pay for it, so you don't get to use it. Make your own shit, dumbass.
You didn't come up with the idea of shitposting, so you can stop now
Reminder that earlier this year Disney tried to stop some guy from monetizing his Star Wars fan film. If a corporation feels that random people online pose a threat to their trillion-dollar business, and can only use the law to stop them, then it's proof that copyright is anti-competitive and only benefits corporations.
>not your idea
>just a random fuck born into a family
>piggyback on said idea and ruin it
>Hey man it's his right he got the right from his great granddad
Did Bob Iger make Mickey Mouse, user?
Did you really think this was a good "gotcha?"
yeah, it is
The US department of education is utterly worthless and keeps getting worse every year.
probably actually read something for once in your life.
>buy a house or inherit a house from someone
>"well that house isn't yours because you didn't build it with your own two hands"
Wrong. Next.
That catchphrase "gotcha" is in direct violation of copyright and trademark laws
>comparing physical things to ideas
user...
You think it is. You're wrong. It isn't. I'd say better luck next time, but you shouldn't try ever again to be clever because that's just completely outside your grasp.
literally all professional artists got their start by drawing fan art, there's no difference between piggybacking off someone elses idea, and nepotism
>comparing two similar things
And?
I understand this but he's been doing it for about two decades now. It's no longer "getting a start" at this point.
Yeah, I think you're mad, you'd love to live in a dystopian future where everything is copyrighted
We'd live in a much different world if we followed your teachings. The ability to adapt and improve on things is fundamental to human life.
marvel/DC had a pretty nice deal in comics where writers could basically put their own spin on established characters. The results were characters and concepts that could evolve, change, develop, and generally increase in quality over the course of decades.
Imagine if the only version of batman anyone was ever allowed to produce was the 1940s version, for instance.
>u mad
Yes, I'm upset that I share this Earth with idiots like yourself, and I know I'm not the only one that feels that way about you. Hey, maybe you should do something about that.
Copyright should last precisely 0 years
Samefag. Picture this.
>grug make wheel
>wheel costs two stone
>unga make better wheel
>only a single stone
>why unga make better wheel?
>me clobber unga
>now me grug has bestest wheel
>any bunga that no like get club
>we all happy now
You really butthurt son, get some ointment
Yeah, we'd live in a better world with a lot more new ideas and a lot less plagiarism and recycled bullshit.
Yes, I am really upset that idiots like you exist. I've said this, and now I'm repeating myself for you because you're a retard and didn't get it the first time.
And the abolishing of decades of copywrite would contribute to more people developing their own versions. Copywrite doesn't end at fucking film.
>copywrite
you're posting on a site that copies a japanese site, on a computer that copied other computers, with a browser that literally anybody can copy and make their own version of
You're not very smart. If six companies try to make the same IP, which company would succeed in in the end? The one who made the safest and blandest, the one who made the most creative take, the one who just slapped together a movie in a few hours and called it the same thing? or one of the other three that have nothing really notable about them?
Copyrights are anti-competition.
Oh no! My mistake, user. That completely invalidates everything I said. Boy you got me there.
don't forget
>surviving thanks to food copied from thousands of other products, living a life that's literally a copy of thousands of other lives
Repeating something or in other words, replacating something is in direct violation of the law
If you can't spell the thing (it wasn't a typo because you spell it wrong twice) that you're trying to argue about even though the word has been used in this thread multiple times, yes, that invalidates your opinion because it shows how little you know about the subject.
I know, good thing disney has never copied ideas ever.
I have copyrighted sex.
Have fun fuckers.
Imagine if somebody wanted to pitch the idea of Star Trek today, Disney would sue the balls of the guy as as soon as he mentioned Star
>which company would succeed in in the end?
All of them to varying degrees. I think it's funny that you probably hate capeshit and reboots and shit, yet without copyrights, theaters would be beyond flooded with that shit as everyone tried to milk it. I don't want to live in a world where the only things playing in the theater are Spider-Man, Spider-Man, Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Man of Spider, the Return of Spider-Man, and Spider-Man in Vegas.
I'm drunk user. Unlike you I actually give leeway to people. Sorry that you're so pretentious that you can't argue with a drunken person without resorting to pathetic fallacies.
It's almost like I want the laws to be stricter so Disney couldn't steal shit from others and were forced to either rely on ideas that own or come up with new shit.
>oh man i got so drunk i accidentally tried to talk about a subject i know nothing about
Well all is forgiven. Now get the fuck out of this thread.
People hate capeshit because its all identically bland and toothless. Its the same movie released dozens of times except with different colors.
Like the bootleg gangster looney tunes example mentioned earlier, different entities would have different creative limits and ideas of the same IP. Success would be a fight to stand out, not blend in.
>oh man I got so drunk I misspelled a word twice and some fucking teenager tried to discount my whole argument over it
This is my opinion on you. It's not wrong.
Can you imagine the butthurt once certain caped copyrights go out in a decade.
>everyone makes the same fucking movie because no copyrights
>"yeah but in that one spider-man is wearing a baseball cap so there's variety it stands out"
I hope your wishes come true because I flat out know you'll live to regret every single one of them, you absolute fool.
au contraire, severe oversaturation would lead to people getting sick quickly and the flourishing of new ideas
the monopoly offered by copyright directly leads to stale ideas, nobody would be hyped for matrix 4 if anybody could make their own matrix instead of the one company that owns it and starves the fans for 20 years to milk nostalgia
Because it's proven that competition is a bad thing, right? Oh fucking wait.
I like how you ignored basically all of that post. Good job.
no your just a low tier human and your entire life is going to reflect it. but i hope your enjoying your high on 4channel tonight believing you are winning things
You misspelled one word twice not because you're "drunk" but because you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Your opinion is invalid because it's entirely uneducated. We may as well ask the wall what it thinks about "copywrite" at this rate. This is all objective, inarguable fact.
>multiple companies are all going to do the exact same things with only minor variations in order to succeed in a competitive marketplace
fucking rhodes scholar right here yo. give this nigga a macarthur grant.
Please, stop, user. Not only are you embarrassing yourself you're embarrassing me for even associating with such a reactive little butt baby who has no argument than "YOU SPELL THING WRONG."
Yeah because those bootleg markets weren't flooded by a ton of people doing the same shit to try to get a quick buck oh wait yeah no that's exactly how bootleg markets fucking work you idiot you goddamn retard.
asserting intellectual superiority after saying something really fucking dumb doesn't work, dog
No I'm pretty sure it's because I'm drunk. You can believe whatever you want. I really don't care, user. I had made a couple posts earlier where I spelled it correctly it was just not in this chain. Which ones? I don't know. You figure it out considering you're so bothered over my intelligence than the actual argument.
Yes, because you can make money by providing people with what they want. If they want Spider-Man, you make Spider-Man if you can. Without copyright, everyone will make Spider-Man shit because Spider-Man shit sells. Anyone who doesn't will wind up making an inferior product that doesn't sell as much, because nobody knows or cares who the fuck your OC is.
I find this statement anti-semitic. Disney employees lots of Jewish people, and Donald Trump is a friend of Isreal.
I see nothing wrong with the president helping to extend copyright dates.
It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. Fact is, you're full of shit.
>want to make money doing thing
>most people are doing thing
>do exact same thing?
... is this your brain on american education?
you're right, public domain IPs are currently dominating the market, snow white made money so it's nothing but snow white movies now
You're defeating your own argument.
If the market is completely saturated with spiderman, then OC becomes a desired thing.
The current copyright environment means one company can have exclusive control over whether or not something becomes "saturated."
>do exact same thing?
Yes, most people will just do the thing that is a proven moneymaker and make money in the process. Duh.
>he says, while they make a movie out of wicked
...
>If the market is completely saturated with spiderman, then OC becomes a desired thing.
That's an incorrect assumption to make.
Imagine being this wrong.
doing the exact same thing as dozens of other entities is not a proven money maker, my dimwitted friend.
This is literally false by the current market lol. Trends rise and fall because people get sick if them and want new things. It would be no different with IP. How many zombie movies are coming out today? It made money so it'll always make money, right?
... "new" is the strongest marketing drive in existence, my utterly fucking retarded friend.
More people can innovate and give us better films. Subsequently you'll also be getting worse films, but I think it's worth it.
Screenshots don't prove shit when you inspect element edit or even just use fucking paint, dumbass.
and what won't fucking happen is one company won't have total control over the exact tone of an entire genre.
>"doing something that is proven to make money won't make you money"
Yeah no you're way better off making cars with triangle wheels because people are just so bored of circular wheels, that market is just flooded with them.
If that helps you sleep better at night, user. Got a preferred form of copying the whole page? I'd love to send it to you in that format. Until then you can keep on seething.
talk to your doctor about mental retardation
that's 1 wizard of oz movie not 100
you want disney to keep puking out remakes of the same old IPs?
wicked dominated broadway for several seasons, my dimwitted chum. specifically because it was so old it was new again.
Trends like zombie movies prove my point: when there isn't copyrights protecting the idea, the market gets flooded with imitators (contrary to you saying "no they won't imitate") and they made cash off those for a fucking decade until everyone moved on to copying the next fucking trend. Yeah, no, let's make that shit a thousand times worse where everyone makes not just the same type of movie, but the exact same fucking movie. Hell, you wouldn't even have to make the movie. Just go to the theater, film the movie, and then fucking sell it legally.
see
There's no way for you to prove something that isn't true, user, so just give up.
where can I find MCU heroine lesbian fan fiction? asking for a friend.....
no one is saying there won't be imitators, what people are saying is people will quickly tire of something that saturates a market, creating a desire for something else.
>let's make that shit a thousand times worse where everyone makes not just the same type of movie, but the exact same fucking movie.
Which will lead to trends moving faster as the demand for new ideas grows even stronger. Also please don't say you think the concept of zombie movies should be copyrighted.
>no one is saying there won't be imitators
That is 100% what was said to me, that people won't try to make a quick buck off something popular.
You're just ignoring information then. Because you're retarded.
Is this the lengths you go to to feel "right?" Pretend like shit didn't happen and everything people said never happened? I sincerely hope you're trolling. I know it's hard to troll. It's a art.
>Which will lead to trends moving faster as the demand for new ideas grows even stronger.
No. If anything, trends will move slower since it'll be easier to just capitalize off proven moneymakers. Why take risks and innovate when you can just cash in on a proven trend? Makes no sense, especially when you can't fully capitalize on your innovation because, the moment it becomes even remotely popular, thousands of other copies of it will be out, and you'll be drowned out by all the people who stole your idea.
>"you didn't fall for my lies and deception and bullshit? gee you must be desperate"
Try again. I'll wait.
Indie films were never good. Disney is also dogshit. Hollywood is a blight and a cancer upon this world.
Friend, if you can't read, why bother replying to a post?
If something makes money, imitators rush in an saturate the market, meaning the "proven" moneymaker is no longer a moneymaker. Meaning a new trend has to surface, because the last trend won't pan out.
Think in terms of a gold rush. Someone finds a nugget, hundreds of people rush to the same spot, the last people only find a few flakes. Except since we're talking about movies, the first guy will mine out most of the gold before anyone can rush in to try to imitate.
How can you wait on me when I'm waiting on you? user you're so silly. You try to flip the tables just like you flipped your gender. Sorry to say but it's not that simple.
>Throwing whine moms a bone is good actually
Literally die.
If something makes money, people are going to do that. They aren't going to take a risk when they don't have to.
Another swing and a miss. This is your last attempt. C'mon, thrill me, baby.
And back to the example of zombie movies: why aren't people still making them?
t. ranny
panning for gold makes money. but not if you're panning for gold in the same stream as 90 other people.
You have to understand this concept, right? There's only a fixed amount of demand for anything. If one company produces all the food anyone could ever need or want, another company isn't going to make much money producing food, the third will make even less, so on, so forth.
You can read, surely you have the intellectual capacity to understand such a basic concept.
The gold rush just proves that people will jump on an idea and milk it for all its worth. In other words, thousands of Spider-Man movies without copyrights.
Because you shouldn't be able to own ideas.
man, the walking dead was like the best show ever, why aren't all shows zombie shows right now?
You fail. Game over.
>panning for gold makes money. but not if you're panning for gold in the same stream as 90 other people.
Not even true. Once you strike a vein you generally need multiple people to help you with it.
it prove the imitators will mostly be wasting their time. As by the time most people knew about the gold rush, all the gold was already gone.
>If one company produces all the food anyone could ever need or want, another company isn't going to make much money producing food, the third will make even less, so on, so forth.
Other companies will try, though, if able. They're not going to go "well, Company A is doing that, and we don't want to step on their toes or hurt their feelings."
But I still have quarters and you're totally broke, user. Must we keep speaking in this pathetic way?
so then you're splitting it 90s ways.
Let me see the list of people who struck it big with their individual mineral rights and didn't get killed over it.
abolishment of copyright laws would result in huge increase in competition and great drop in prices. Isn't it what capitalism is all about? Competition?
fuck dude, you can't even read. why are you even bothering replying to posts?
You're basically saying you, right now, opening a wal-mart clone would immediately make as much money as wal-mart.
>it prove the imitators will mostly be wasting their time.
Not at all. All it proves is how people/companies behave, and not that copying someone else's business strategies is necessarily doomed to failure. You're using really faulty logic.
let me see the list of people who won arguments by quibbling
Ladies first. What you can dish it but not take it?
>You're basically saying you, right now, opening a wal-mart clone would immediately make as much money as wal-mart.
This has never once been said.
being second isn't doomed to failure, sometimes even third can do okay, but fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth, fourtieth?
Like was said before, there is a fixed amount of demand for anything, and the first person there will get most of it.
>Come up with a simple technology or a design
>make a patent
>get tons of money for the next 25 years for doing literally nothing
>the industry struggles to efficiently implement it due to the high prices you charge
>the technology is not developed further because only you have a right to it and you don't give a fuck, since you already made all the money you want
Copyright is hindering progress and is actually anti capitalist
Yeah, you can make money being the one hundredth dude to do the exact same money-making thing as everyone else. You don't have to be the first guy to make a hamburger in the history of the world to make money selling hamburgers.
your argument is the second and fiftieth people to a money tree will get the exact same amount of money as the first.
You've repeated this a number of different ways.
Basically you're fucking stupid.
>LIVE
>DIE
>DILATE
>the first person there will get most of it.
Not over a period of decades. The person who does it best will get most of it.
>get tons of money for the next 25 years for doing literally nothing
Coming up with new technology and designs isn't "doing nothing," though.
That explains why there's an identical number of [every-other burger joint chain] restaurants as there is mcdonalds.
No, that's not my argument at all. You're now purposefully misunderstanding what I've said in order to create a strawman because you're tired of losing again and again, and need an opponent on your level. I'm done replying to you at this point. I'll take my W and put it with the rest. Bye.
But for the next 25 years you are doing nothing and you are not interested in developing said technology because you are already making money for it.
Plus not all patents are smart or complicated. Most of them are just pictures with "intended design"
if only we weren't talking about movies
You're confusing "make money" with "make the same exact amount of money." That's oafish.
>that's not my argument
but it is your argument. You're saying a hundred different clones of mcdonalds will be as identically successful as mcdonalds because mcdonalds is a proven money maker.
What's the difference? That a certain company could spend billions of dollars on one thing and billions more to advertise it? That way they'd be the "best?" That's unpossible!
But you did something to earn that money nonetheless.
You're acting as if being the 300th mcdonald's clone would be as appealing as being the second in order to push a fantasy that people would keep making the exact same movie forever because the first one made money.
Oh I see, you're one of those retards who thinks movies are only successful because if their marketing.
I guess you are too stupid to actually understand economics.
>there's no point in making a burger joint because mcdonalds exists
Absolutely incorrect.
Why can't you read? How? It doesn't make any sense you stare at your fucking phone 24 hours a day piratically and you can't fucking read.
Who the fuck are you? Did you not see the horrible fiasco of not advertising with Star Wars Disney World? You're Bob Iger, aren't you? The very same fucker who thought people would flock to the park just because he tweeted it was opened. It has to be marketable, it has to be good, and it has to have a popular name attached to it if it will last a long time.
Not an argument.
companies pull advertising campaigns when test marketing returns negative results, my incredibly stupid chum. Because pushing things people don't like makes them like those things less, and eventually outright hate those things.
You see this every day on this shitty board with insecure spics whining about black male white female pairings.
Have a (You)
How did they have time to assemble on one side of the conflict based on their gender?
Did Thanos minions just ignore them long enough for this to occur?
Did they assemble far enough away from the conflict so they had time to gather?
Was this planned in advance? If so how?
Does gender even apply to non super powered humans?
No you didn't. Just because you came up with some idea doesn't mean everyone using it should be paying to you now. It's anti-capitalist and anti-competition. It hinders our progress and keeps prices high as fuck.
Take electronic ink displays. They are simple and cheap, yet tablets with them cost $1000+ and there are only few of them because of retarded copyright law. The technology could have been developed much further and we could have cheap huge tablets with weeks of battery life for writing for cheap if not for copyright.
Or take medical companies - we could have medicine for pannies for everyone but instead we are getting thousand dollar bills for some stupid pill, making healthcare expensive and not affordable to many people. There is probably a cure for cancer ready in some lab but we don't get it cause they don't see profitable releasing it and others can't use it due to copyright laws
I like when faggots stop replying because they're waiting for the thread to get close to the bottom of the catalog so they can chime in at the last minute and get the last word in and "win" in their minds. It's exciting.
>companies pull advertising campaigns when test marketing returns negative results, my incredibly stupid chum
So where are all the Star Wars ads, my Disney cock sucking friend? Because it's fucking failing. It's proven it is. Yet no ads fucking anywhere still. Not for Galaxy's Edge, not for Episode IX, fucking nothing. Because they have nothing. They ran a franchise into the ground despite paying 4 billion dollars for it. You're defending a company that spends billions of dollars on things and pisses on the consumers when they say it's shit. Fuck you.
holy fuck, read your own post at least. My god how are you this dumb? how are you asking a question that was already answered before you asked it?
Yeah you did. You took the time and effort and spent your own money developing an idea that is worth something to other people, and thus you earn the money you get from it. I will agree, though, that when it comes to medicine, something people need to live, it's a different beast altogether. However, when it comes to shit like Spider-Man, you can live without Spider-Man. Nobody is going to die because Spider-Man has a copyright on him. So why not give his owners their dues and pay them for what belongs to them? If you don't want to, come up with your own character and write your own stories and do your own thing, man.
Calling that user a "dummy dumb-dumb" isn't a convincing argument. Try addressing what he says, or just don't waste your time replying.
>vague bullshit insults
>instead of simply pointing out where somebody is wrong, they dance around it, calling you names
>no real point is made to address the issue
>will continue to spout rhetoric practiced in the Talmud
Go on.
Was Thanos and his minions close enough to warch this assembly occur?
If so were they in awe of the sheer stupidity of this occurence?
Or did they belive it to be some strange flanking maneuver? Or distraction?
Again all questions the writers may have answers for, doesn't matter, assume was some strange nod to feminism in a comic book film of all things.
you're never going to be rich. you're never going to be a CEO. You're never going to develop anything worth while. Everything currently developed that is worth while is a collaborative process of hundreds, if not thousands of people. If every single one of those people treated their personal labors and insights as sacrosanct and inviolate, we would never be able to share ideas and grow as a people, never be able to progress technology, and we'd still be cowering in caves.
>companies pull advertising when test marketing is negative
>OH YEA WELL THEN WEHRE IS THE HUH HUH MARKETING HUH????
This isn't rocket science. This isn't even plumbing.
Kinda sad how people only complain about these bullshit laws when it effects their capeshit characters
Technology has progressed while copyright existed, so your theories are proven wrong by reality itself.
Which plays into my point that they're not fit to run the franchise and it'd be better off in other hands. But not they had to spend billions and billions of dollars because THEY KNOW WHAT YOU WANT on it.
What this user said It's not about one guy making something nowadays. It's mostly huge corporations that make/buy and hoard patents, making insane profits and hindering our progress as humanity. Just look at apple/samsung/nokia patent wars. If not for those patents, we would now have cheap af smartphones that would be much better than the current offering, because due to increased competition and easy access to technology, there would be plenty of niche offering for everyone.
Technology progresses because a company employs a bunch of people and then treats those people's ideas as it's own.
Did it ever cross your mind that I'm not defending disney? and that you're possibly retarded?
Copyrights are pretty recent. Anyway, look at china. It's more technological innovative today than all other countries and it offers same or better products for way lower prices. This is because they don't give a fuck about copyright laws.
Thank you for following my advice and not just resorting to silly namecalling, but if I were to give you further advice (which I guess you want since you gave me a (You), and by the way, thanks for that), I'd say that "rephrasing" what people "said" in a ridiculous, over-the-top manner is a dangerous tactic, because you can wind up accusing them of saying something they didn't actually say, which leads to your strawmanning them (which is a weak way to argue with people). A stronger tactic is to quote their words verbatim.
Honestly, no. Because you seem to be the same guy who resorts to calling people names almost every time and not actually addressing what they're talking about until somebody calls them out on it. Why can't you be civil instead of being an absolute cunt?
You're now going off topic. I've only been discussing copyright in its relation to television and film (this board's topic), specifically in terms of characters and stories. I'd probably agree when it comes to things like medicine, but that's completely off-topic.
Does it really matter that a corporation makes money off a story or character? To me, not at all.
Calls you out on it, my mistake. Remember user. I'm drunk. I said this before so don't call me a liar now.
Well, when I post something, and then the response ignores all of that and is just a mindless repetition of an already refuted idea, what am I supposed to do? Half the posters in this thread (mostly (you), lets be truthful) simply can't read and have no memory. So its not like there's much else to say other than, holy fuck, you're dumb.
friend, when a reply asks a question that is already answered by another post, how is that not already exponentially more ridiculous than all caps and tard-type could ever express?
I was the one that posted something and you ignored all that I said and instantly started calling me retarded and saying you didn't believe I was drunk for whatever fucking reason. One of your first responses to me was shitting on a typo. I say I'm drunk. You call me a liar. Real fucking classy.
If you pay someone to come up with an idea for you and fund their research and so on, yes, you own that idea. It's yours. If they don't want "their" ideas being "taken," then they can just not sell them off (which means they won't get paid and funded to do said research and development).
To put it another way, if I pay someone to build a house for me, I own that house. I didn't put the labor in, but I paid someone for it. The people who put the labor in were compensated for their work. If they didn't think the compensation was fair, they could just refuse to build the house in the first place.
see
well shit man, there was tons of dumb shit said in this thread. you're going to have to narrow it down. this thread was basically "ms kreeber's special education 4th grade class attempts to understand copyrights, economics."
I've seen that reply, and in fact replied to it. It doesn't address what I said in . Please keep worthless replies like this to yourself.
Actually, user. I do apologize. I did misread you. You were saying imitators were not making the money, right? So in that sense are you agreeing that a free market would be best and the superior product would survive? I really am drunk.
This right here, user. Do we agree or no?
Well it does. Look at star wars. Disney bought and ruined it. And they don't allow anyone with views different from theirs touch it. I would like more content in the republic era or in the old jedi times, like kotor. But nah, nobody can make games, movies, books, exploring the universe. We can only go see Luke being a retard and a strong women saving the day.
If star wars wasn't patented, there sure would be a lot of garbage content. But there also would be a shit tone of legit good movies, games and books from different creators with different vision. And if you wanted cannon content, you could still watch only the content made or approved by the original creator.
yea, it does. is a core refutation against anyone other than the CEO of a large R&D corporation or IP producer defending copyrights.
You, personally, do not benefit from copyrights and you never will.
My suggestion would be, if you find yourself repeating things you've said, either try to say them in a different way, or just give up because it's not working out. I don't think replying foolishly makes things better for you because it just makes you look dumb.
But how would you differentiate? Say there are 30 mcdonalnds cafes in your town. All of them have same uniforms, logos, ads, menus, etc. But only 2 of them are owned by the original company. Imagine how much effort it would take to figure out, which ones are real. And then how would they expand if there is already a mcdonalds on every street?
yes, i was agreeing that without copyrights, trends would move faster and OC would have to be produced quicker.
>You, personally, do not benefit from copyrights and you never will.
Things do not exist solely for my benefit. Your existence doesn't benefit me in the slightest. Following your logic, you should stop existing.
Friend, if you can't read, probably don't get on the internet. As you just look incredibly retarded when you fail to understand very basic ideas presented in less than a hundred words.
like how the fuck can you function in the real world if you can barely comprehend a sentence?
I've said this multiple times. In a world where such differentials are needed people would simply look to the people running the company. Imagine Disney now with the same logo and all but in the corner it said BOB IGER PRESENTS. That way people would know it's the one true Disney and Bob Iger's name isn't up for copyright. Nobody else can ever say "Bob Iger presents" without his consent.
copyrights do not exist to benefit anyone but people/entities you will never be/own. They exist only to slow progress, curb originality, and make the economy predictable, so the rich can stay rich and you can keep voting against your best interests.
>if you can't read
This is a lazy crutch you always reach for when you can't think of an actual reply. I've seen you do this multiple times in this thread. You'd be more effective if you didn't rely so heavily on it.
You don't exist for my benefit, so stop existing.
>fail to comprehend basic post
>get called on it
>instead of going back and trying to, ya know, read, attempt to assert intellectual superiority for your failure to read
whats your endgame here
It would take a lot of research for people to figure stuff like that out. And people usually don't make such research.
You do know that there are many people with the same name, right? In you case I, as a competitor, would find a guy with the same name, pay him and write the fucking same.
I like how you just compared me to copyrights, things you've been sitting here for HOURS should exist and are good.
I'm just giving you advice that you essentially asked for by replying to me. If you don't want my advice, don't reply to me.
hahaha, fuck, your retarded ass is back at that retarded ass fantasy where people would follow disney around with cultish brand loyalty again.
the imitators would only need to write "Bob Igor presents!" or one of infinite variations. Or just say "disney." most people (read: consumers) wouldn't care if they were buying official products and would buy whatever they liked most or was the right price.
Back in the day, sure. That's the only crutch for Disney. But it really isn't a crutch because they have the Walt Disney family name. That surpasses copyright. Corporations need to stop being faceless figures and start being like they used to be. It pains me to say but Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos had the right idea. Elon Musk to. Make your name associated with your company. Spawn heirs or at least pass ownership on.
I'm babbling user. I hope you understand the gist of what I'm getting at because I know it might not be up to perfect standards.
By continuing to exist, you prove yourself a hypocrite.
talk to your doctor about autism. That's my advice to you.
I would only be a hypocrite if I sat here for hours arguing why its good that I exist, at my own detriment.
but hey, reading is really fucking hard isn't it
That's not what I said you sad, sad man. I was saying if Walt Disney handed off the company to somebody who kept it well people would still follow it. Current Disney cannot uphold that standards.
You used that one in this thread, too. I advise you to sit down and spend some time developing new material, user. Maybe make a list of things to say when you can't come up with an actual argument. If you do this, maybe you'll be less embarrassing when you post in a 4channel thread.
You're delusional if you think 10 different companies, all called "disney" all putting out the same products, would end with whatever walt's company used to be, being the juggernaut it is today.
or maybe you're just incredibly stupid.
when you act autistic, you're going to get called autistic. as its not like you can just stop being autistic.
>reading is really fucking hard isn't it
Clearly for you it is.
>the imitators would only need to write "Bob Igor presents!
This wouldn't be the fucking case as that's false advertisement and Disney (Bob Iger) would sue their ass into oblivion. You don't need current copyright laws to stop identity theft and false advertisement.
it would only be false advertising if they didn't have a guy named bob igor presenting.
its amazing you need such a basic concept explained to you.
What's your point? Current Disney isn't what what Walt wanted.
Giving someone helpful advice isn't "autistic" by any definition of the word.
And you were told to stop using this crutch. Why did you seek out my advice if you're not going to follow it?