>>27187 Huh, those came in super small. Open them in a new tab if you want to read them.

>>27187 >I respect someone's objections to seeing their work misused, unless I'm the one personally enjoying the misuse, then I condone it.

>>27195 god damn right.

>>27112 >Yes, it does retard, both your physical object and digital file could be easily copied and reproduced A tangible product that you can buy and hold in your hands is NOT an idea! >but are limited by government enforced monopoly. It is not government enforced. The only people who can enforce their ownership over a property is the entity, themselves. Even then, they have to prove that they have ownership over it. The government doesn't go breaking down the doors of Person A because they suspect that Person A is violating Person B's right to copyright. >Take for example how Disney shamelessly ripped-off Kimba with no consequences And, Japan shamelessly ripped of Rambo, Alien, Mad Max, Escape From New York, Battlestar Galactica, Total Recall, Lupin, Blade Runner, Red Harvest, The Terminator...do I need to go on? >ideas/designs/etc aren't property No, they're not, UNTIL you make a functioning proof of concept that actually exists. That's how patents work. >So what you're saying is that you're against the Second Amendment and want the government to have monopoly on violence? Where the Hell did you derive that from saying that governments hunt down people that expose military secrets? >Sure, but it can easily work with other things such as movies, songs, books, comics, cartoons, video games basically every entertainment media But you cannot cannot dissection a fucking horse for the purposes of making another horse from scratch! >how many people still purchase vinyls versus those who only use digital recordings?! Apparently enough to, not only outsell digital music: https://archive.ph/zYXg0 But to still be on the rise in sales while other physical media formats are in the decline: https://archive.ph/GtKbC And, are selling even better than when vinyl was the standard: https://archive.ph/kBZHR >No, copyright wasn't created immediately alongside the printing press, it was first created by the Anglos in 1710, two centuries later than what you claimed. https://infogalactic.com/info/History_of_copyright_law <The republic of Venice granted its first privilege for a particular book in 1486. It was a special case, being the history of the city itself, the 'Rerum venetarum ab urbe condita opus' of Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus". From 1492 onwards Venice began to regularly granting privileges for books. The Republic of Venice, the dukes of Florence, and Leo X and other Popes conceded at different times to certain printers the exclusive privilege of printing for specific terms (rarely exceeding 14 years) editions of classic authors. >one can't easily copy DVD/Blu-Ray without a special program The ability to recreate something and actually following through on recreating are two entirely different things. You can make as many copies as you want of your Wii and PS4 games, or the latest season of GoT, but good look on figuring out how you're going to do it as it's not the government's, the company's, nor the public's responsibility to provide you with a method by which you can make person copies of your own items. >And if I want to copy my property and share it with others? Wouldn't that fall under similar instances of loaning your friend your CD or inviting friends over for a private showing of a movie? >IP is not real You are right, because IP law does not exist. What DOES exist is copyright/patent/trademark laws. >if it weren't for copyright monopoly, everyone would focus on quality services and products That's not what history has shown. In fact, look at what is perhaps the greatest example of what happens to products and services that are not bound by copyright: THE FOSS COMMUNITY. Where you have hundreds upon hundreds of programs that are not restricted by copyright, anyone can copy and reproduce for whatever reason they want, and will be available forever and free of charge until the Earth is destroyed. HOWEVER, despite that being the case, has Unix outpaced Windows as being the dominant operating system? Has GIMP surpassed Photoshop as the dominant image editing software? Has Tox displaced Discord as the best chatroom software? No? Why is that? After all, these products are free and you don't have to pay for them. And, I, myself, have used some awesome FOSS products such as Paint.NET, Pale Moon, LibreOffice, Claws Mail, Honeyview, MPC, and Everything. There shouldn't be a reason why these software and programs are not the dominant leaders in their fields. However, they aren't, which is even more scary in instances such as smartphones where NONE of the alternative operating systems are actually usable despite the entire project having a FOSS foundation. Which brings forth the question of "Why?" If you want my personal take, it could be because of a few reasons: <The hostile atmosphere the FOSS community creates when it comes to customer support <The fact that majority of FOSS products are not designed with user interests in mind <FOSS developers have the mindset of a "Fix it, yourself" mentality, which results in nothing getting fixed or improved because no one wants to address real issue that exist with a product <FOSS does a bad job of advertising itself <FOSS users and even developers still utilize to non-FOSS products for actual utility because it does what they want to do when the FOSS software does not <Non-FOSS developers are freely able to copy and use FOSS designs and concepts because FOSS programs are not restricted by a (Enforceable) copyright system In fact, I'm certain that the last point is certain to be A factor because there's been several recent instances where tech companies have been exposed for copying FOSS programs and coding for their own private projects, with said projects then proceeding to outpace the original FOSS program despite the private programs being inferior by all intent and purposes. So, in a way, it does end up exposing that quality is not created by a lack of copyright. Created by a lack of options. If anything, it reinforces the notion that quality products occur as a result of limitations and competition in place. Also, despite all that being said, how does any of this relate to a situation where you download someone's free music, and then begin to start selling on burned CDs of said free music? >Now you economically illiterate imbecile talks about completely different issue How is it completely different? If Company A is selling a CD player and you, as Company B, produce a better CD player for a lower cost, and start to overtake Company A, how else can they compete? They can't make your CD player as the specific design of it is protected under a patent you created (Unless we're living in your world where patent laws don't exist, in which case they can just copy it without worry). They can license the right to use your patent, thereby making you even more money, but that would end up costing the Company A more money than if they just continued to sell their current CD player. They can pour money into R&D for the purposes of making a better CD player than yours, but there's no guarantee that the final product can compete in the price despite the improvements over your CD player. And, the last option is moving production into an area that will drastically lower the cost to gather the resources and/or manufacture the CD player for Company A, at the increased cost of shipping it back to their domestic market and paying for any tariffs that are in place, but still provide a more inexpensive price than what they were previously offering and manage to effectively counter and compete with your CD player.

>>27112 >He is actually promoting legally purchasing of entertainment media on fucking board that has pinned share thread Couple of things. FIRST, pirates act as free advertisement for companies, if you don't already know: >>26725 Second, you do realize that majority of people on imageboards actually buy products and only resort to piracy out of lack of options rather than do it as a necessity, right? >Not exactly lobbying, but I can show you a case when the government (as usual) tried to fuck things up and surprisingly it was a company that went against patent monopoly which allowed for competition and therefore cheaper prices. That's rather interesting, I did not know that. Though, I have a couple of questions. First, where the source of this quote? Second, is that literally the only instance you can find of a standard media format being mandated by a government entity? Third, what was the actual situation that led up to this? The last one I find most interesting because I want to see what led up to this decision to nationalize Betamax tapes. >>27113 >Also, worth noting on the subject of copyright, is the prevalence of lost media. The most known one would be local dubs, but other examples would be such as Might Max garbage quality because it was only released on VHS and the copyrightniggers who owns it don't give a crap. I doubt the issue is solely that the copyright holder are greedy hoarding Kikes as even companies like Harmony Gold are not opposed to rebroadcasts of Robotech and rereleases of the original Macross (Just as long as they get paid for it). If anything, it could be that the company actually lost the original recordings of the show and all that's left are the VHS tapes and home recordings that the public solely owns (Which is what happened with Star Trek). And, if that's the case (As I'm just spit-balling here), the issue could be the private collectors, as there have been innumerable instances of little cabals sprouting up around "hard to find" find media, that restrict the knowledge of this media's existence and availability to their own little circle, and will unironically murder people if they leak it to the outside world: https://archive.ph/IIo4A Or, it could be that the series is caught up in a copyright mess between Film Roman, BKN, Mattel, and whoever else worked on the show; and they don't want to redistribute the series because they don't want someone coming out of the woodwork and suing them for unpaid royalties (In which case, the company is getting attacked for doing what the public wants and demands). OR, it could be a "Disney vault" situation where they're waiting for the "right time" to rerelease it to the public, and/or don't want to redistribute it because there's something about the show that the company doesn't have widely available (Kind of like Disney with Song of the South). All that being said, though, in regards to the specific case of Mighty Max, I cannot actually find ANY explanation for why the show hasn't been rereleased, so all we can do is speculate as to the reason, which isn't going to get us anywhere. >There are more examples for copyright stifling creativity, ffs the entire last decade and likely this decade too full of endless reboots and rehashes and more and more giant corporation buyouts. That has NOTHING to do with copyright. In the case of reboots and rehashes, that's just companies relying upon brand names to sell a product. They even do it on items that are no protected by copyright, such as Sherlock Holmes, Alice in Wonderland, and Romeo & Juliet. And, as for consolidation, that just makes things simpler if you want to make a derivative work of an item under copyright as you just have to go to one company rather than five. >So all in all, lack of copyright bullshit actually encourages both creativity and quality. All you've shown is that companies are endlessly going to copy "good" ideas and concepts that people already want and not make anything unique or better. It's quite literally the same issue as the "Reboot/rehash" complaint you just made in regards to copyright, except with entire industries doing it rather than one sole company. >>27187 >but I don't think Pepe was ever really his to begin with So, it's another Metroid/Mega Man situation, where the so-called "creators" were not the actual brains behind the project?

>>27112 >Take for example how Disney shamelessly ripped-off Kimba with no consequences Disney did not rip off Kimba.

>>27199 >In fact, I'm certain that the last point is certain to be A factor because there's been several recent instances where tech companies have been exposed for copying FOSS programs and coding for their own private projects, with said projects then proceeding to outpace the original FOSS program despite the private programs being inferior by all intent and purposes. So, in a way, it does end up exposing that quality is not created by a lack of copyright. Created by a lack of options. If anything, it reinforces the notion that quality products occur as a result of limitations and competition in place. Don't most FOSS products have legal restrictions on their code being used in closed-source products?

>>27201 They did. They were literally part of a Kimba project before that fell apart & they made The Lion King. Which is just a rip off of Macbeth.

>>27204 You got a single citation to back that up?

>>27202 >Don't most FOSS products have legal restrictions on their code being used in closed-source products? Yes, and they can pursue legal action if they want: https://archive.ph/eQRuK But, the important question is "WHY?" Arguably, wouldn't it be hypocritical, towards the entire idea and origin of the FOSS concept, which is to make better quality products, not to receive financial compensation or public recognition, to pursue legal action? If companies are making better products with their work, doesn't that mean that the mission is completed? However, ignoring the concept of FOSS, there are issues with this course of action. First of all, you would have to prove that your FOSS creation is being utilized, which would require you to build a damn solid case that would be accepted by the courts just to pursue the basic discovery process needed for court cases. Second, where is the money going to come from to fund this legal action against a corporation when you're a lone individual? Third, why would you need to be hasty with pursuing your legal action? Copyright isn't going to end until your death plus 70 years, so you could wait years upon years for the company to use your code as an essential part of their product, and then pull the rug right out from under them for having violated your copyright after they had made some significant amount of money just from your work alone. >>27204 >Which is just a rip off of Hamlet. Fixed that four you. >>27205 There are dozens of videos about it: https://rumble.com/v30of3-is-the-lion-king-a-rip-off-simba-vs-kimba.html

>>27206 > Arguably, wouldn't it be hypocritical, towards the entire idea and origin of the FOSS concept, which is to make better quality products, The goal of FOSS is not to make better software in and of itself. FOSS purveyors would probably argue that FOSS *results* in better software, it's to have software that you can utilize and adapt to your needs freely. So you're already on the wrong foot here. The main goal of FOSS is not to make the best software, it's to make software anyone can freely study, copy, use and modify. >not to receive financial compensation or public recognition This is not a core component of FOSS, it's not even close. RedHat and FireFox are examples of free and open software that are paid enterprises worth incredibly vast amounts of money. It's obvious you don't actually understand what FOSS is about. You seem to be confusing the idea of FOSS with some variety of Marxism. It's "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". >to pursue legal action? No, not at all. > First of all, you would have to prove that your FOSS creation is being utilized, which would require you to build a damn solid case that would be accepted by the courts just to pursue the basic discovery process needed for court cases. This applies to all code related lawsuits in general, this is not FOSS exclusive. >Second, where is the money going to come from to fund this legal action against a corporation when you're a lone individual? This is the only real argument you have, but this just seems to speak more to the need for there to be a need for a small claims court in the US rather than a base flaw in FOSS being abused in closed software. >Third, why would you need to be hasty with pursuing your legal action? I don't think you understand the legal restrictions under a license. The GPL (what plenty of FOSS is written under) is a license, not a contract, as far as copyright law goes. The most that can occur in a conflict between a FOSS entity and a closed source entity is, after discovering that GPL code is being used, is to make claims to the court that the closed-source entity is violating your license. The only thing that happens after this is the company who has integrated the software must remove the software, pay the FOSS representatives legal fees, then given the choice: either release the entirety of the code you're written under GPL, or, remove and rewrite the damn code. If they choose neither, the court orders an injunction, and you business enterprise fails because you can't fucking sell anything. >There are dozens of videos about it: https://rumble.com/v30of3-is-the-lion-king-a-rip-off-simba-vs-kimba.html I've seen plenty on the subject, this is the first time I've ever heard the claim that the animators for the Lion King were originally meant to be on Kimba. I've seen every other claim concerning Lion King being a Kimba rip off debunked. The only people who still make this argument have never actually seen Kimba. There are many reasons to hate Disney, choose a real one as opposed to a fake one.

>>27206 I get my Shakespeare confused. >>27208 Shockingly it's hard to watch a japanese anime from the 60s if you're not in japan.

>>27209 >Shockingly it's hard to watch a japanese anime from the 60s if you're not in japan. It really fucking is, yet everyone and their mother is convinced Lion King is a rip off because the names "Simba" and "Kimba" sound similar. Fun fact, they sound similar because "Simba" is just Swahili for "Lion".

>>27208 >You seem to be confusing the idea of FOSS with some variety of Marxism. It's "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". What's the difference anymore ever since most FOSS program are now getting CoCked? >I don't think you understand the legal restrictions under a license. The GPL (what plenty of FOSS is written under) is a license, not a contract, as far as copyright law goes. If you read the archive linked earlier to the court case, the court viewed the GPL license as an enforceable contract. >>27210 >>Shockingly it's hard to watch a japanese anime from the 60s if you're not in japan. >It really fucking is, yet everyone and their mother is convinced Lion King is a rip off because the names "Simba" and "Kimba" sound similar. It's because Kimba has been broadcasted in the United States several times. First on NBC and KHJ-TV in '66, then in syndication until 1980, then again by CBN in '84.

If you don't believe, here's the opening that they had for the show when it aired on NBC.

>>27210 >>27211 >>27212 Kimba had VHS & DVD releases for it's original series, the reboot, & an OVA. But again, most people only knew anime from watching it on TV. Kimba was known enough but it's no Dragon Ball or Sailor Moon in terms of widespread american popularity.

>>27211 >If you read the archive linked earlier to the court case, the court viewed the GPL license as an enforceable contract. Having read through the actual court case here: https://casetext.com/case/artifex-software-inc-v-hancom-inc As opposed to some two-bit's journalists reporting on the case. What actually happened is that Company A had two versions of license for it's Open-source software. Version X lets you use it for free, but you must abide by the GPL. Version Y requires you to pay a fee, but you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. Company B wanted to use the software made by company A, but they didn't want to pay for it and refused to abide by the GPL. The lawsuit then ensued where it was stated because Company B did not follow the GPL, and did not pay. The "contract" in this case is not the GPL, it was the fact that Company B violated the GPL AND refused to FOLLOW the alternative option of paying for the license. I have no doubt however, that the majority of retards who are not lawyers will probably misinterpret this. Hell the judge might have to. Then again, US common law deems an EULA to be a "contract" which really just calls into question if anyone actually knows the difference between a license and a contract. Pray tell fair anon, what do *you* personally think the difference is between a contract and a license? Why are they different words? >First on NBC and KHJ-TV in '66, then in syndication until 1980, then again by CBN in '84. That doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Toy story doesn't violate the copyright of Raggedy Ann just because the animators may have seen it as children. >>27212 I've already seen that fucking clip. I've seen a 2 hour video analysis by someone who is probably the most autistic person to analyze The Lion King. Kimba does not own the concept of talking animals in Africa, lions being "Kings of the Jungle", or the Swahili word "Simba". There's no relation between Simba and Kimba beyond these three thing. Which, it should be stated, predate even Kimba as tropes going back to an early US comic called "King of the Beasts", so even, in the most glorious and forgiving light, one acknowledged these three similarities, the end result is that both Kimba and Simba are knock offs of an earlier comic. Kimba does have ownership over the concept of a lion cub talking to and wearing the skin of his dead father though, so there's that.

>>27214 >Pray tell fair anon, what do *you* personally think the difference is between a contract and a license? If I had to guess, a contract is a mutual agreement between to parties over an exchange that continues until the contract is completed to what both parties agreed. Meanwhile a license is effectively an agreement by one party to allow another party access to something as long as they abide by the rules in place. >Why are they different words? Based off of what I know, a license would still be considered a contract, but not all contracts are licenses. Kind of like how pool is a variation of billiards, but billiards is not necessarily pool; or how a tomato is a fruit, but not all fruits are tomatoes.

>>27214 Wacky oddball herbivore animal friends. Obvious childhood friend love interest girl lion. Evil/cruel uncle. Roaring on the peak of a slanted structure. There's more than just 3 things that have suspiciously in common.

>>27216 There's also the actor and staff quotes stating that they thought they were making a Kimba movie until they were told they weren't. Although, none of this would have gained traction if the Disney marketing department hadn't hammered into people's heads that The Lion King was "Disney's first 100% wholly original" film, which every 90's sitcom had a field day with when everyone realized that the film was ripping off Hamlet.

>>27220 Yep. Which goes back to my earlier remark that they were PLANNED to do a Kimba project collaboration but that fell through. Leading to this "Disney Original(TM)" project.

>>27212 >If I had to guess, a contract is a mutual agreement between to parties over an exchange that continues until the contract is completed to what both parties agreed. Meanwhile a license is effectively an agreement by one party to allow another party access to something as long as they abide by the rules in place. You got it, congratulations. To put in more specific terms however, the base difference is that a license is one way, it bequeaths additional rights you did not have before (you may make copies of this, you may use this in other works) but is allowed to place stipulations (you have to make it FOSS kid). Meanwhile a contract requires both parties to agree to the terms mutually, may remove rights from each other (you are not allowed to sue me, whatever.) and may bequeath rights. Nothing in the GPL removes a right from a person utilizing it, it simply gives rights with stipulations. >>27216 >Wacky oddball herbivore animal friends. >Obvious childhood friend love interest girl lion. Falls under talking animals, which Kimba does not own. >Evil/cruel uncle. Kimba does not own the concept of a cruel uncle. >Roaring on the peak of a slanted structure. Kimba does not own the concept of pointy rocks in Africa or lions roaring in Africa either. I suppose I'll give you this one though. >>27220 >>27221 Do either of you have any evidence to back up this claim whatsoever?

>>27228 >Do either of you have any evidence to back up this claim whatsoever? He's another video that pulls direct sources, behind the scenes videos, and goes over much of the history, boiling it down to two "possibilities": https://yewtu.be/watch?v=nI-LNKZy3tY <1. The Lion King started production as a Kimba adaptation, and Disney then proceed to change enough allow for plausible deniability on how similar the works are. Which is a likely scenario as much of the early staff and even the lead actors honest-to-God thought that it was a Kimba film. <2. All people working on The Lion King were influenced enough by Kimba that the film is quite literally a tribute to it, or unconsciously referencing it. And, that one thing I find funny is that the video's creator tries to back the latter idea as more plausible, but ignoring the fact that it's perhaps the most damning aspect of the story and provides a third, more likely, possibility. That The Lion King started work as a Kimba adaptation, however the original idea for the film was heavily altered after Tezuka's death, but they eventually returned to much of the original concept afterwards because all of their ideas to make the story more along the line's of a Moses retelling failed (Little note that there is some crossover of the people who made The Lion King and DreamWorks' Prince of Egypt), and much the staff carried on with the idea of it being a Kimba film or being influenced the broadcasts of the Kimba cartoon that regularly airing from the 1960s through the 1980's.

>>27238 >Watch video >get to 7:54 >"Did Disney steal The Lion King? The Short Answer is No." Your own source discredits your position. >He then goes on to just start spouting the bullshit comparisons Robert Patton made. I'm already aware of all of those claims and they're fucking garbage. I will differ to the statement by Tezuka's own company on the matter, Tezuka productions. "[q]uite a few staff of our company saw a preview of 'The Lion King', discussed this subject and came to the conclusion that you cannot avoid having these similarities as long as you use animals as characters and try to draw images out of them" >Which is a likely scenario as much of the early staff and even the lead actors honest-to-God thought that it was a Kimba film. "Most of the staff" is a funny way to refer to man not even credited on the film, one actor, and third anonymous source. Roy E. Disney is not a writer for the project, nor is he even deeply involved in the creation process, bastard is not involved in the creation of The Lion King enough to "think he's working on a kimba" film. The second was Matthew Broderick, I suppose you are correct, there was indeed one person who thought he was working on a Kimba film. Problem, what was his job on set anon? What did he do? If you answer was "is a voice actor" that would mean he shows up at the tail end of production, *once the story is already written*. The one *that very video you posted claims is the more likely case.* Him being the lead actor doesn't fucking matter, the film had been being made for a god damn decade at that point. Every animator and their fucking mothers would have been aware they were working on a Kimba film before a fucking actor sauntered on set. It's like you don't understand the production process at all. Any animators that came forward about merely knowing or stating similarities to Kimba never said "and I thought I was working on a Kimba film", which, given their the ones there from the start, should have probably happened.

>>27228 You are deep in denial if you can't see the very blatant parallels.

>>27241 >Your own source discredits your position. <Videos literally says, "No, Disney didn't copy 'Kimba', BUT let me go over every statement confirming that they copied Kimba, but let's ignore that because Disney put in 'hard work' into this film, and that's more important." The guy even buries himself further in the comments of the video that Disney did copy Kimba.

>>27244 I can only quote Tezuka productions: >[q]uite a few staff of our company saw a preview of 'The Lion King', discussed this subject and came to the conclusion that you cannot avoid having these similarities as long as you use animals as characters and try to draw images out of them

>>27247 Have a source for that quote?

>>27251 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-07-13-ca-15117-story.html https://archive.ph/baxcM The article further includes quotes from animators firmly stating Kimba was not formerly considered as any inspiration for the project.

>>27195 Did I stutter?

Does no one else see the irony that it's perfectly okay to talk about media like Deep Space Nine, Warcraft, and Diesel being rip-offs of Babylon Five, Warhammer, and Jojo's Bizarre Adventure (Where similarities become far and few between); but, when it comes to The Witcher and The Lion King, it's considered absolutely unfathomable to say they're ripping Elric and Kimba?

>>27296 Anon I hate to shatter your autistic illusion but the Lion King never ripped off Kimba. Its just an adaption of Hamlet with lions.

>>27298 Wrong. >>27296 The similarities with something like The Witcher & Elric are surface level. Lion King & Kimba are very blatant.

I've always wondered if the discussions on this board are always the same two autists fighting or just one autist and the other is just a contrarian trolling him.

>>27302 >Witcher https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Conjunction_of_the_Spheres >Elric >https://www.seiyuu.com/okamoto/writing/multiverse.html >The Conjunction of the Million Spheres You deserve that ban.

>>27313 You can Frank are both faggots. These aren't unique ideas. The closest actual connections are going by the name 'The White Wolf'.