>>26427 The Banana Splits.

>>26428 They're still under copyright, Warner just wanted to use their rejected FNAF script they had laying around.

>>26427 Technically anything used by Adult Swim. Though its always been a comedic parody, though that Pooh movie is on some other level of sleeze. >>26434 That's kinda the point.

Probably the Zorro movie that's on the way, with hacking.

>>26449 Another one?

>>26437 When does Adult Swim use public domain characters? They're most known for using Hanna-Barbera characters, which are fully under copyright, and they just have the right to use them.

>>26452 >they just have the right to use them Yeah and they made Peter Potamus a sexually charged deviant. The thread's called Copyright gone wild not Public Domain gone wild.

>>26453 >the moment it became free to use That means public domain. If you happen to have access to it because you're part of the same company, that isn't free, since you have to work for that company.

>>26454 But its still the property going off the deep end. The OP used Pooh as an example because of recent events but the title is obvious he didn't limit it to just public-domain topics.

I saw some stupid copyrightniggers using this movie as a case against public domain. Everyone should have the opportunity to make good or awful version of existing franchise/character rather than having nonstop raping of classics by giant corporations. Imagine many companies competing to make the best toys/cartoon of X character/franchise...

>>26455 It's an important distinction, because what usually happens is a piece of media is violated specifically because it isn't free to use, and those that have a monopoly over it get infiltrated by those who want to destroy it. See: the entire American comic book industry. If those characters were public domain, we might get a decent story once in a while. Instead the only people who are allowed are people who specifically want to violate the pieces of media they got access to and are keeping from being free to use.

>>26503 Not really its just a thread.

>>26500 Copyright is a good thing. The problem lies when corporation greed overcome the will to make a good story. I dont want to see gay pooh having a transsexuals intercourse with piglet in the next shitty knock off movie Cinderella story is public domani, the most famous one is Disney view, not the barbie one or the Chinese knockoff

>>26537 >the Chinese knockoff Which one?

>>26537 <Copyright is a good thing No, copyright is pure nonsense and evil, there's no such thing as IP as it's not tangible and neither scarce which are the conditions that create the need for property rights in the first place. Furthermore, copyright results in hurting actual property rights by limiting one' use to his own property and changing the definition of homesteading in which the property owner isn't the one who was the first to occupy it. <The problem lies when corporation greed overcome the will to make a good story No, the problem lies in unjust and artificial state enforced monopoly. And let me ask you this, did you pay for every IP you have consumed? Or you're also a hypocrite? I suggest you read Kinsella' book, it's really short and easy to read. >>26503 Agreed

>>26542 >And let me ask you this, did you pay for every IP you have consumed? Are we talking tangible or non-tangible because simply knowing something exists or more than enough payment to some corporate entities.

>>26537 >I dont want to see gay pooh having a transsexuals intercourse with piglet in the next shitty knock off movie I don't want to see it in the next shitty "official" movie. But it's gonna happen. I'd rather let anybody make something, and let the good ones float to the top. It makes the bad ones easier to ignore.

>>26539 There is a full category of mock cartoons that try to cash in on disney ones just for the sake of each money. And they do this exactly cause of no copyright laws about it https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html >>26542 >there's no such thing as IP as it's not tangible <what are books? What are movies? What are anything that got invented or created? >copyright results in hurting actual property rights by limiting one' use to his own property Oh shit! I create a story it hits big and is actually hurting me not allowing random niggers to make money out of my story:^]. Anon are you a chink or a jew? Cause you can't belive this unless you are a subhuman trash trying to justify using other people things to make money out of it Copyright is there to avoid random niggers to use shit you came out with. That's it, that's the original purpose for it. Tolkien wrote middle earth, no one can make a story about it, Prince wrote a song no one could copy it. Random person take a photo and no one can use it for monetary gain outside of tbe first photograph >And let me ask you this, did you pay for every IP you have consumed? Or you're also a hypocrite? Do you even know what copyright is nigger? I dont take someone else story character and create a movie off it to gain money myself. What you clearly are confusing it with is piracy or using something for yourself without paying which doesn't have anything to do with copyright laws

>>26550 ><what are books? What are movies? What are anything that got invented or created? Books and films are objects. Stories and "movies" are not. He's saying they only exist in idea form and therefore there is no such "thing" as them. You're being disingenuous and you know it. At least acknowledge the points he's trying to make. By disingenuously ignoring them, you're not going to convince anybody that they're wrong. >copyright results in hurting actual property rights by limiting one' use to his own property >Oh shit! I create a story it hits big and is actually hurting me not allowing random niggers to make money out of my story Again, being disingenuous and dodging his point is not doing you any favors. He specifically said "actual property rights by limiting one's use to his own property." You buy a book, you own a book, but you're not allowed to copy that book you bought. It limited your rights to use your own actual property. >Tolkien wrote middle earth, no one can make a story about it, Except they have, and they are, and because of intellectual property laws, they get to stop you from doing it. You're not allowed to make a good story with those concepts, but they're allowed to make their pozzed stryng yndypyndynt fat black dwarf women, then people like you think it's fine because it's "official." Wait, did you think Tolkien was the one making that new show? I'm sorry to tell you this, but J.R.R. Tolkien died in 1973. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Turns out copyright laws go far past the life of the author. His son published some books later, but he died too, and now some random jews get to butcher the life's work of two generations of that family, and they have a monopoly on doing so, and get to stop anyone else from doing actual loving and faithful works with those ideas, while calling their own bastardizations legitimate. And Christopher Tolkien could have published all of his works regardless of if other people could also make derivative works based on his father's properties, because people would still be interested in seeing the works directly based on his father's notes and drafts. But if someone wants to some straight up fanfiction, that should be allowed too. >What you clearly are confusing it with is piracy or using something for yourself without paying which doesn't have anything to do with copyright laws >piracy... doesn't have anything to do with copyright laws Are you fucking retarded? Of course it does. It's 100% a copyright law issue. What you call piracy is copying the protected IP. That's precisely what is illegal. >piracy or using something for yourself without paying Oh, so you are a retard, because that's not what piracy is. Piracy isn't using something for yourself without paying, it's copying IP without authorization. Alternatively, it's attacking and robbing ships. They give them the same name to scare retards like you into thinking they're the same thing even though they have nothing to do with each other.

>>26427 Nigger

If the slash Poo movie lowers the value of Disney's version of the IP, it's a good thing.

>>26537 Copyright as it exists nowadays is absolute cancer. We have companies sitting on IPs they don't even know exist for 100 years.

>>26503 >>26542 >>26537 Pepe the Frog is a prime example of a comic creator that was bothered by the remixed works being spread for both political and personal reasons. I recall that the recent documentary showcases copyrighted work and imageboards.

>>26542 >>26537 Copyright only made sense in the context of 1800s to early 1900s media industries that would see bootleggers and copycats in America and Northern Europe siphon profits off of original work by reselling retold or altered versions of the original product. Even then, it was created with the intention of keeping a certain trove of publicly available material (the Public Domain) so that new artists could use that as their inspiration rather than having to deal with other artists accusing them of plagiarism. And even then, copyright laws only extended for a very specific amount of time (30 years IIRC) which was enough for the artist and their family to profit off the original work, plus it didn't account for corporations (who are treated like people even though they can keep living forever) renewing them forever. Copyright is completely useless without the Public Domain, and Disney and Congress killed the latter.

>>26427 Rick & Morty exists solely because the creator got a cease and desist for trying to make a video with the Back to the Future characters

Also, fuck the idiots who mix copyright laws with piracy laws. Copyright is all about the creators, not the distributors. If I can't call a fucking cat Tom without having Warner Bros try and sue me there's something really wrong with the industry. Anything older than 50 years should not be locked down by nebulous corporations as far as creativity goes. >>26537 >Cinderella story is public domani, the most famous one is Disney view, not the barbie one or the Chinese knockoff The Disney one is the most popular THIS FAR. If you give it enough time you'll get someone who can retell the story in a way that is better or more compelling. I mean, Disney tried to own the exclusive rights to fucking Peter Pan. Picrel is a decent South Korean retelling of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, except she's a landwhale "cursed" with becoming attractive which she doesn't like and the dwarves are cursed as well. In a world where the classic depiction of Snow White is completely owned by Disney you could not have this kind of work, regardless of its quality. >>26450 That sounds like a really cool pitch but that cover doesn't show much promise

>>26601 If they only knew the consequences of their actions.

>>26602 >Copyright is all about the creators, not the distributors. No it's not. It's about who has the right to copy a thing. That is the publisher, since publishing is making many copies of a thing. Whoever first has the copyright can perhaps work out a more complicated deal to give limited rights to publishers, but that's rarely what happens. Instead what happens is publishers demand full copyright or near full copyright of the IP, or they refuse to publish it, and then it doesn't get published, and then you never hear of the thing. >>26582 >I recall that the recent documentary showcases copyrighted work Since it was a big enough project and was pushing the right politics, they'd get to make use of fair use doctrine, which is supposed to help, but like most legal defenses, only helps if you have enough money. But it shouldn't be an issue in the first place, because everything is fair use. Copying something isn't stealing. If I have a car and it's stolen, I'm not mad that the other person has a car, I'm mad that I don't have a car anymore. When I download a song, nobody lost anything. They're just mad that I have a thing now.. >Picrel is a decent South Korean retelling of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, except she's a landwhale "cursed" with becoming attractive That doesn't sound decent at all. Gookanon was right about South Korea. >>26601 Star Wars exists because Lucas couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. Donkey Kong exists because Nintendo couldn't get the rights to Popeye. Willow exists because Lucas couldn't get the rights to Lord of the Rings. Okay, maybe that last one isn't the best example for the point you're trying to make. But it's all stupid anyway. Good for Lucas and Nintendo. I should still be able to make a Flash Gordon movie if I want. The man who created the character is long dead.

>>26542 >copyright results in hurting actual property rights by limiting one' use to his own property HOW?!?

>>26607 >Donkey Kong exists because Nintendo couldn't get the rights to Popeye you mean mario

>>26551 >He's saying they only exist in idea form Copyright doesn't protect ideas. It requires an actual physical object to exist in order for it to be protected under the law. Meaning, that your sci-fi opera story that only exists in your mind is not protected under the law, and not protected by copyright, BUT your scribbling of a short story with that concept onto a napkin with a crayon IS protected by copyright. >Except they have, and they are Because they bought the license from the Middle-earth Enterprises (Who bought the exclusive merchandising rights from Tolkien, himself, back in 1976). >and because of intellectual property laws, they get to stop you from doing it No, it doesn't. If you want a perfect example of this, there was the Fellowship of the Rings video game that was released literally a month before the "official" video game based on the Peter Jackson films. How that occurred is that Vivendi bought the rights from the Middle-earth Enterprises to exclusively develop direct vidya adaptations of the TLotR books, meanwhile EA bought the rights from New Line Cinema to exclusively develop vidya adaptions of the TLotR films made by NLC (Who, in turn, bought the rights from the Middle-earth Enterprises to develop theatrical adaptations of the books). >and now some random jews get to butcher the life's work of two generations of that family Because they sold the rights to a company for them to do that! >and they have a monopoly on doing so No, they don't. In fact, a decade ago, the Tolkien Estate sued WB, NLC, and Middle-earth Enterprises for breaching the licensing agreement that was established way back in 1969: https://archive.ph/addjg To which they won (Walking away with over 75% of the original lawsuit amount): https://archive.ph/pYjIg >and get to stop anyone else from doing actual loving and faithful works with those ideas That would still apply had Tolkien not sold the merchandising rights back in the '69. In fact, the Amazon series is a direct example of that because, while WB is doing their own thing, they're licensed out their licensing rights to Amazon who can develop their own Tolkien works. So, boiled all down, the copyright system is working just as intended. As Amazon cannot do anything that violates the agreements made WB and NLC, who cannot do anything that violates the agreements made with Middle-earth Enterprises, who cannot do anything that violates the agreements made the Tolkien Estate.

>>26607 >When I download a song, nobody lost anything. Yes, they do. They lost the money that they could have earned had you bought the song through a store that distributes it. >Okay, maybe that last one isn't the best example for the point you're trying to make. What's wrong with Willow? That was a great movie.

>>26618 No he's right the original game (Donkey Kong) was supposed to be the main franchise, they branched out because no one played DK3 in the arcades >>26607 >Copying something isn't stealing. Gee I guess I should be copying all these banknotes since I am not taking them from anyone in particular

>>26620 >Yes, they do. They lost the money that they could have earned had you bought the song through a store that distributes it. Do they lose money when I listen to a song on the radio or directly from a band's official jewtube channel?

>>26624 Not necessarily because the radio companies and the Jewtube channels bought the license to distribute the songs in that manner, so money is still changing hands and people are still getting "paid". Anything beyond that is when you start entering into a politics and logistics argument, not an argument about copyright. For example, some radio stations did previously work out details with record companies to air the entirety of a band's latest album prior to it's release. However, to influence people to buy the album rather than record the entire thing with a cassette tape when it aired, what the station did was run commercials between each of the songs, so you'd want to buy the album for an ad-free experience. Whether or not it was a profitable action is up to the bean-counters in accounting and marketing. That's also another reason why there was so much controversy around Napster and iTunes when they first started, companies were questioning whether it was actually profitable to sell songs for $1 individually over the net with a 30% cut off the top to the storefront compared to the costs of manufacturing and distributing CDs and cassette tapes with 8-12 songs that sold for $10-$15 each in the physical stores.

>>26620 >Yes, they do. They lost the money that they could have earned had you bought the song through a store that distributes it. How can they lose money they didn't have yet? They have exactly as much money as they had before, and they still have the song, too. I didn't take anything from them. They still have everything they had. It's not like I came to their house and stole the master tapes. They still have them.

>>26637 >How can they lose money they didn't have yet? Because, if piracy didn't exist, then the only way you would have acquired the product from the company is through a person, outlet, or storefront (And/or from the company themselves) that legally acquired and/or distributed it. >They have exactly as much money as they had before, and they still have the song, too. It costs money to make anything. Just in the production of the music alone, they have to pay whoever is writing and playing the song, pay for the equipment used to play the song, pay for the equipment to record the song, pay for the people to finalize the song, pay for the people to produce the packaging and medium that the song will be distributed on, and then pay for the people to ship the song to outlets or customers directly. >I didn't take anything from them. Yes, you did. If you pirated the music, you're costing the company money that they spent writing, record, organizing, producing, manufacturing, and distributing the music with the sole purpose of you BUYING it from them so they can invest that money into producing more projects in the future.

>>26651 >Because, if piracy didn't exist, then the only way you would have acquired the product from the company is through a person, outlet, or storefront (And/or from the company themselves) that legally acquired and/or distributed it. First of all, stop trying to scare people from the concept of copying by associating it with people who rob ships. Call it piracy all you want. It's copying. If actual pirates were only copying other people's ships and the things on them, nobody would have cared. Those people were mad because they lost their ships and other possessions, not because someone else had some too. Secondly, let's take a look at your quote again. >Because, if piracy didn't exist, then the only way you would have acquired the product from the company is through a person, outlet, or storefront (And/or from the company themselves) that legally acquired and/or distributed it. So they didn't lose anything. Even in your definition, they still have everything they had before. Let's look at it again, because there's a lot that's wrong with it, and I want to keep reminding you of what you said to show what's wrong with it. >Because, if piracy didn't exist, then the only way you would have acquired the product from the company is through a person, outlet, or storefront (And/or from the company themselves) that legally acquired and/or distributed it. If cars didn't exist, the only way you would have acquired long distance land transport was horse or rail. That doesn't mean that using an alternate means to get that transportation is "pirating" horses or trains. The people who own the horses and trains and horse accessories still have them. The people who want to sell CDs still have the CDs and they're free to sell them. Nobody wants to buy them anymore because the tech is obsolete, and artificially limiting that tech through lobbying the government to use force on people who attempt to use the tech, so as to save an obsolete tech, is ridiculous. >It costs money to make anything. And if they can no longer justify the cost without lobbying the government to enact force on their behalf so as to hobble newer technology, then they should move on to other ventures. We'll still have plenty of musicians and other artists. Many people literally do it for free. And of course, it's not like the sales of CDs are even the main way a lot of rich musicians make money anyway. They have found other ways to monetize their service. Good for them. In fact, those ways are much older than selling physical copies of music, and lobbying the government to use force to stop people from making copies on their own. >If you pirated the music, you're costing the company money that they spent writing, record, organizing, producing, manufacturing, and distributing the music Nope. I didn't force them to do those things. I didn't trick them into doing those things. I didn't say I would pay for it and then didn't. I didn't cost them a dime. They invested their money in an obsolete technology, and then decided that instead of finding other ways to monetize things once it became obsolete, they'd rather invest further into lobbying the government to use force to hobble the new tech that made their old methods obsolete. That's their own stupid investment strategy. I never told them to do it.

>>26427 id rather some random schmuck "defile" a franchise in a one-off installment that can be easily forgotten and ignored while allowing for renditions of the ip to be done by literally anyone(specially those that actually care about it), than to have the ip tied to a company that can defile it any way they see fit and whatever they do must be taken as canon

>>26662 Same, things have gotten so bad I'd rather these shit companies sit on their old IPs forever.

>>26652 >Call it piracy all you want. It's copying. Did you have access to the original product yourself at any point in time? <No, but- It's piracy. >So they didn't lose anything. You acquired a copy of the item through illegitimate means, depriving the company of having earned any amount of money from the production of that specific product at any point in time. >If cars didn't exist, the only way you would have acquired long distance land transport was horse or rail. How does this analogy even work? >That doesn't mean that using an alternate means to get that transportation is "pirating" horses or trains. No, but you are depriving them of a source of revenue as you're using an alternative means of transport. Hell, even choosing to use a railway is depriving the horse caretakers from the money they would have earned had the railway not existed, and vice versa. >Nobody wants to buy them anymore because the tech is obsolete No, people are still buying CDs. And, cassette tapes. And, vinyl records. I fact, I still buy CDs because I like owning a physical copy of my digital goods. Some people do disagree, which is why iTunes and Spotify took off, but that's up to them. >and artificially limiting that tech through lobbying the government to use force on people who attempt to use the tech, so as to save an obsolete tech, is ridiculous. The Hell are you talking about? >And if they can no longer justify the cost without lobbying the government to enact force on their behalf so as to hobble newer technology, What the fuck are you talking about or even referring to?!? >We'll still have plenty of musicians and other artists. Many people literally do it for free. Good for them. Why are YOU NOT giving those guys attention then? Boosting those people into the spotlight? It would be a lot more beneficial to spend your time advertising those artists who create their work free of charge than it would be to pirate music and justify your actions to people on the internet who just point and laugh while you're twisting in the wind and contradicting yourself. >and lobbying the government to use force to stop people from making copies on their own Hey, retard, have you actually READ a license agreement or even know what the law is? You're free to make as many copies of anything you own as you want, as long as it doesn't extend outside of your own personal use. >I didn't force them to do those things. If you're enjoying the fruits of their labor, that was done with the intent of you buying the product from them, yes you are. >I didn't say I would pay for it and then didn't. Yes, you are, if you acquired their product outside of legal means (Whether it be through purchase, gifted from another individual, or even if the company releases it for free). >they'd rather invest further into lobbying the government to use force to hobble the new tech that made their old methods obsolete Again, what the Hell are you referring to?

>>26687 >Did you have access to the original product yourself at any point in time? No.

>>26600 Exactly, so copyright is a good thing. It got jewed into becoming cancer

>>26652 >if I record a movie and show it to my friends they haven't lost money since they wouldn't have bought the ticket and since they still have the movie reel they haven't lost anything at all Holy fuck, you are the most retarded advocate for piracy I've ever seen. Why the fuck do you think a lot of live performances don't want you to record shit? They still can do the performance but then if you show it to someone else they aren't gonna buy the ticket to the concert/movie/stand up... fuck you could get a movie disc and show it to your friends in your private home but you can't show it on a projector in the town squares since they could argue that 1% would have had to buy the movie disc to see it. Piracy do hurts sales and thank God for that and saying they didn't get money that you weren't gonna spend, jokes on you since you did see the show/movie/song ironically therefor you would have had to spend money for it:^] are you a lefties pretending to fit in by any chance? >it's not piracy cause I'm not stealing, I'm copying You do realize that Jamal rip cam movie disc got payed once and made 30 copies to be sold at the train station? Are you saying he isn't stealing 30 other tickets from the cinema possible revenue but only copying his own ticket viewage?

>>26723 Yeah, and used movie sales should be illegal because the people who bought used didn't give any money to the studio!

>>26723 >Piracy do hurts sales Not necessarily This is the reason why I said that you start getting into logistical arguments and politics: >>26630 Some companies, in recent years, have found that piracy actually helps to boost the sales of their media. One example is that Warner Bros. and Adobe discovered that they have better things to do than hunt down GoT and Photoshop pirates as those same pirates proceed to talk to people about their products, and those people that they talk to then go out and buy copies of Photoshop or subscriptions to HBO. Another example is that Netflix, when they first started streaming, referred to torrent sites on what films and show were popular downloads, and then proceeded to contact the companies to license out those specific properties for the purposes of airing them on their streaming site, and the rest is history. And, you can find similar opinions in music, vidya, literature. Now, is it true "all" of the time. No. In fact, the only media found negatively impacted by piracy was theatrical films. However, (In general) piracy does net companies a more universal positive than it does any negative to their bottom line. That's ALSO why I find the piracy moron to be rather irritating because, rather than promote the creators who do their work for free (Something which he idolizes and advocates), he'd rather give attention to companies who only see him as free word-of-mouth advertising, with one of three possibilities happening as a result of HIS actions: <1. He downloads the media and deletes it because he doesn't like it <2. He downloads the media, likes it, proceeds to tell his friends (Either IRL or online) about it, and they then go out and purchase the media <3. He downloads the media, likes it, and likes it enough to go out and buy it

>>26725 Isn't Adobe a thing where they don't care about individuals pirating because they know it results in people get skilled with Photoshop instead of the alternatives, which in turn forces companies to buy expensive corporate licenses for Adobe products?

>>26687 >Did you have access to the original product yourself at any point in time? <No, but- It's piracy. Nope. It's not robbing a ship. It's copying. If I look at someone else's ship and copy it board for board, why would they be mad? They still have their ship. They were not attacked by pirates. This is a ridiculous weasel word. >You acquired a copy of the item through illegitimate means, depriving the company of having earned any amount of money from the production of that specific product at any point in time. >illegitimate Says them and the governments they've lobbied to enforce their own corporate interests. If they had their way, then driving a car would be acquiring long distance travel through illegitimate means, depriving them of having earned any amount of money they could have gotten from selling me a horse and carriage instead. >No, but you are depriving them of a source of revenue as you're using an alternative means of transport. Hell, even choosing to use a railway is depriving the horse caretakers from the money they would have earned had the railway not existed, and vice versa. My point exactly. And you pretend this analogy doesn't work. And make no mistake, they did try to stop cars early on. Old tech always tries to stop new tech. >No, people are still buying CDs. And, cassette tapes. And, vinyl records. I fact, I still buy CDs because I like owning a physical copy of my digital goods. Some people do disagree, which is why iTunes and Spotify took off, but that's up to them. Okay, so you're not even trying to argue my point, and are arguing over my hyperbole of saying "nobody." You're in fact only helping my point, by pointing out that there is value in physical media, so they can make money by selling it. But they don't want it as much as before because much of its use is now obsolete. Other things can do some of the things these types of media used to do. So be it. But instead of rolling with the tides, they try to block the rise in technology. But even then you actually agree with my point by pointing to things like iTunes and Spotify. That's an example of them actually trying to move with the tech and find new ways of monetizing things. Good for them. Out compete the other ways people can do things, instead of lobbying the government to be the jackboot thugs of their corporate interests. >The Hell are you talking about? >What the fuck are you talking about or even referring to?!? Are you literally retarded? They lobbied the government to get copying made illegal, and lobbied it many times to continue extending this law further and further. The tech is there and we can copy things easily now, and so they paid the government to use physical force (police, etc.) on people who use the new tech that they don't want to adapt to. You've clearly never thought about this topic even a little, and even now you can't be bothered to think about it as you have this conversation. If you can't be bothered to think, don't go running your mouth. >Why are YOU NOT giving those guys attention then? Who said I wasn't? Oh wait, nobody. You just don't have an argument so you're trying to now shift the conversation while also trying to defame my character, as if it would have any merit on the morality of copyright laws. >Hey, retard, have you actually READ a license agreement or even know what the law is? You're free to make as many copies of anything you own as you want, as long as it doesn't extend outside of your own personal use. Nothing to do with my point. If I want to sell a copy I make, that's my own personal use. If they want to sell more than me, then they should make better copies, or have better distribution, or find some other way to actually out-compete me, instead of paying the government to use force against people who try to compete against them. >If you're enjoying the fruits of their labor, that was done with the intent of you buying the product from them, yes you are. No, I didn't force or trick them. I didn't tell them I'd do something and then not. They made an assumption about what I'd do. If they're wrong, that's their own bad decision. They should have done a better job factoring in things like modern technology, instead of getting mad when someone doesn't want to use obsolete tech or tech that they've paid the government to deliberately gimp. >I didn't say I would pay for it and then didn't. >Yes, you are, if you acquired their product outside of legal means (Whether it be through purchase, gifted from another individual, or even if the company releases it for free). Those two things aren't remotely similar. Copying a tape off the radio is not the same as calling up the record company and saying "hey, if you make this, I'll buy it." It's not the same as making a pledge to do anything. They did something hoping I'd react a certain way. If they're wrong, they're wrong. That's business. Business involves anticipating what the market will do. It should not involve lobbying the government to use force to make sure the market can't do things you don't want it to do. >Again, what the Hell are you referring to? Wait, you don't realize that copyright is a law? You keep referring to it as being illegal. You understand that means there are laws involved, right? It means that if you don't do what the government says, they'll use physical force upon you. Record companies and others like them have a history of paying lobbyists to influence the government and get them to enact the laws they want, like copyright laws. In other words, they pay off politicians to get the politicians to pay the police to kick in your door and use physical force upon you if you use a technology they don't like, namely the tech to copy things like music, motion pictures, etc. The fact that you've never heard of things like copyright law or how lobbyists influence copyright law, yet are having this conversation, is shocking.

>>26741 >If I look at someone else's ship and copy it board for board, why would they be mad? Because you built a ship that belongs to their country, and they have every reason to destroy it and you to keep the details regarding all the ship's specifications a secret. Why do you think governments lose their minds whenever vehicles and weapon blueprint are leaked to anyone, even their own allies? >If they had their way, then driving a car would be acquiring long distance travel through illegitimate means, depriving them of having earned any amount of money they could have gotten from selling me a horse and carriage instead. They DID try that in the late 1800's when they blamed the railroads and steamships for the cause of inflation and the drop in agriculture prices that caused local businesses to compete on a national (Sometime international) level. And, they failed. >And you pretend this analogy doesn't work. It doesn't because you're not sneaking into the train depot or horse corral in the middle of the night, dissecting the locomotive/horse down to it's simplest components, cloning every single one of those components with exhaust from your ass, rebuilding both into identical twins, and no one being aware nor the wiser of what occurred. >But instead of rolling with the tides, they try to block the rise in technology. You keep repeating this, but you never state WHERE this is occurring, nor WHAT it is that you are referring to. >But even then you actually agree with my point by pointing to things like iTunes and Spotify. No, I'm not, I'm stating that people use different media for different reasons. For example, vinyl records have the clearest sounding recordings despite everything that has been accomplished with digital recordings. In fact, companies have actually returned to producing vinyls because of how many people prefer how they sound over digital media formats. >They lobbied the government to get copying made illegal THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE! Since Copyright was first created in the 15th century, it's purpose was to limit who can and cannot make copies and derivatives of any and all works. Companies didn't do that. >The tech is there and we can copy things easily now, and so they paid the government to use physical force (police, etc.) on people who use the new tech that they don't want to adapt to. Please link for us what actual even you are talking about. Even the stingiest of copyright holders have dabbled with even the most experimental methods of distribution (For example, you can even find LaserDisc, Betamax, and VideoCD released of Yidsney films), so I have no fucking clue what you are referring to. >Who said I wasn't? Clearly you are since you seem to prioritize leading your moral crusade against anyone and everyone wishing to protect their right to their copyrighted works, instead of promoting those individuals who push the ideals you claim to cherish. >Nothing to do with my point. Yes, it does. As long as it's for your own personal use, you can make as many copies of anything that you own. >If I want to sell a copy I make, that's my own personal use. No, it's not because now you're selling a derivative of a product that you didn't have the rights to. In fact, imagine how much of a coronary your "free artists" would have if you SOLD their music on a disc despite that music originally being released for free by them. >If they want to sell more than me, then they should make better copies, or have better distribution, or find some other way to actually out-compete me, instead of paying the government to use force against people who try to compete against them. You mean like what companies did when they moved all product development overseas? And laid off millions of people as a result for the purposes of "just saving a couple cents"? >No, I didn't force or trick them. Was that product released with a price tag on attached to it? <Yes And, did you pay for that product? <No So, you swindled the company out of money they should have earned in exchange for you acquiring that item? <YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS: they should make better copies, or have better distribution, or find some other way to actually out-compete me >They made an assumption about what I'd do. If they're wrong, that's their own bad decision. They should have done a better job factoring in things like modern technology, instead of getting mad when someone doesn't want to use obsolete tech or tech that they've paid the government to deliberately gimp. So, individuals and companies who enforce their copyright against people like you, who don't want to provide them with the compensation they demand in exchange for you receiving a copy of their product, are in the right for desiring and acting upon methods to protect their works? With this ideal also extending to your "free artists" who will also seek to protect their copyright by enforcing the laws against people like you, who can and will download the works they created and provided free of charge and sell with a price tag attached to it. >Record companies and others like them have a history of paying lobbyists to influence the government and get them to enact the laws they want, like copyright laws Copyright laws have existed for over 600 years, meanwhile the very first method to record audio didn't exist until 1857, so what the fuck are you talking about? >The fact that you've never heard of things like copyright law or how lobbyists influence copyright law, yet are having this conversation, is shocking. No, you misunderstand, the thing I haven't heard of, that you keep repeating and referring to, is the music industry, and every media creator for that manner, lobbying the government to outlaw the development of new technologies that can be used for the purposes of further distributing their works to more audiences across the planet in different formats. So, please tell us, WHERE are the lobbyists and the lawsuits that existed for the purposes of outlawing the phonautograph, the phonograph, Gramophones, vinyls, the telegraph, auxiliary cabling, air transmissions, phonofilm, magnetics tapes, optical discs, magnetic discs, computer circuits, and the fucking internet?

>>26545 >simply knowing something exists or more than enough payment to some corporate entities Non-tangible, corporations can only enforce what the government let them to enforce. >>26600 >>26722 No copyright was always dumb and evil. <Copyright only made sense in the context of 1800s to early 1900s <Even then, it was created with the intention of keeping a certain trove of publicly available material (the Public Domain) so that new artists could use that as their inspiration rather than having to deal with other artists accusing them of plagiarism Dumbass, copyright was created in England as means for the government to enforce censorship and in return give state enforced monopoly for corporations, it was never about muh artist which is bs lie spreads by corporations and only gullible statist cucks fall for. This also why the French Revolution Regime also enforced it so they can find who to put in the guillotine. You morons also ignore the worst and most evil aspect of IP which is patents and results in new type of medicine being expensive, because again corporate monopoly. The only acceptable types of IP are Trademarks (for company names) which first and foremost hurts the consumers and Trade Secrets which cannot be easily obtain and can actually be held by contracts which enforce the small party involved in contrast to regular copyrighted material. >>26550 I see other anon have already refereed to your stupid arguments. You're just a tryhard edgelord and self-admitted pathetic thief. >Anon are you a chink or a jew? I'm surprised you edgelord didn't want with kike. Is this supposed to insult to me? The king of comics is a Jew, Fleischer Studios was founded by Jews and they created Betty Boop, the man who created Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack, Sym-Bionic Titan and worked on the original Powerpuff Girls was a Jew, etc. The only good thing about evil CCP is their almost complete disregard for globalist Copyright laws which allows the existence of big Third-Party Transformers market that blows Hasblow and Takara out of the water. Another thing as of late, is third party TMNT Turtle Van which cost less than the upcoming Neca and Super7 ones. >>26619 <Copyright doesn't protect ideas Yes, it does retard, both your physical object and digital file could be easily copied and reproduced, but are limited by government enforced monopoly. <the copyright system is working just as intended It doesn't, just like hypocrite petty thief believe in copyright for thee, but not for me so does big corps. Take for example how Disney shamelessly ripped-off Kimba with no consequences and Mattel Barbie began as a knockoff of Bild Lilli doll and they acquired the rights for it after being sued by Louis Marx and Company who had the rights for Bild Lilli. >>26752 <ship that belongs Again copyright subhuman, ideas/designs/etc aren't property no matter how much you statist cuck want it to be. <Why do you think governments lose their minds whenever vehicles and weapon blueprint are leaked to anyone, even their own allies? So what you're saying is that you're against the Second Amendment and want the government to have monopoly on violence? What a statist cuck lmao. >It doesn't Sure, but it can easily work with other things such as movies, songs, books, comics, cartoons, video games basically every entertainment media which this thread is dedicated to and you braindead copyrightnigger try to defend. >In fact, companies have actually returned to producing vinyls because of how many people prefer how they sound over digital media formats C'mon' nigger, how many people still purchase vinyls versus those who only use digital recordings?! It's mostly hipsters that still buy vinyls. <THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE! <Since Copyright was first created in the 15th century Wow you retard not only a complete ignoramus when it comes to economics, but history as well. 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.

[Expand Post]

<As long as it's for your own personal use, you can make as many copies of anything that you own Fucking liar, one can't easily copy DVD/Blu-Ray without a special program and I'm old enough to remember when they tried to pull this shit too on music CDs. And if I want to copy my property and share it with others?! I should've the right to because it's my property and mine alone you fucking corporate shill statist cuck! <you're selling a derivative of a product that you didn't have the rights to Again, statist subhuman, IP is not real despite your daddy government says so. He also says that you should celebrate fag month and finance child abuse which I'm sure you statist cuck love to do:^) <In fact, imagine how much of a coronary your "free artists" would have if you SOLD their music on a disc despite that music originally being released for free by them First, retarded, it's the corps you suck that get most of the money. Second, if it weren't for copyright monopoly, everyone would focus on quality services and products, it's safe to assume that if said artists would offer those things, people would be willing to support them and buying from them. How do you retard think open-source projects operates?! <You mean like what companies did when they moved all product development overseas? Now you economically illiterate imbecile talks about completely different issue, which is somewhat related because once again government regulations and workers unions which third world countries have little to non in that regard. <So, you swindled the company out of money they should have earned in exchange for you acquiring that item? <He is actually promoting legally purchasing of entertainment media on fucking board that has pinned share thread <Copyright laws have existed for over 600 years Braindead nigger we already gone through this, you don't know jackshit about economics nor history go and get cucked by state and corps! 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. >In 1974, the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), desiring to avoid consumer confusion, attempted to force the Japanese video industry to standardize on just one home video recording format. >JVC believed that an open standard, with the format shared among competitors without licensing the technology, was better for the consumer. To prevent the MITI from adopting Betamax, JVC worked to convince other companies, in particular Matsushita (Japan's largest electronics manufacturer at the time, marketing its products under the National brand in most territories and the Panasonic brand in North America, and JVC's majority stockholder), to accept VHS, and thereby work against Sony and the MITI.[19] Matsushita agreed, primarily out of concern that Sony might become the leader in the field if its proprietary Betamax format was the only one allowed to be manufactured. Matsushita also regarded Betamax's one-hour recording time limit as a disadvantage.

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. If it wasn't for copyright everyone could've owned a copy and transcribed it to dvd and other formats. There was a restoration project, but it never got finished, again if it wasn't for evil stupid copyright, the person behind it could've done crowdfunding and release Mighty Max in good quality. >>26607 >Star Wars exists because Lucas couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. Donkey Kong exists because Nintendo couldn't get the rights to Popeye. Willow exists because Lucas couldn't get the rights to Lord of the Rings 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. Then you have Nigsocs/Commietards/Economically illiterates whining "muh Capitalism!" completely ignoring all the government regulations and most importantly the state enforced copyright monopoly! In contrast, if you compare the situation to the Chinese toy market, while there have been few raids such on Lapin (which made Lego KOs) and Wei Jiang (which made excellent Hasblow KOs) and some companies start to moving to countries with even cheaper slave labor, there is still huge knockoff and bootleg market. However, there is recently also new Chinese toy companies that make original toys such as Snail Shell and 52toys. There is even company, BigFireBird, that makes both original and bootleg toys! So all in all, lack of copyright bullshit actually encourages both creativity and quality. >The man who created the character is long dead Doesn't matter if he was dead or alive, IP isn't real property and no one have a right for monopoly. >>26741 >The fact that you've never heard of things like copyright law or how lobbyists influence copyright law, yet are having this conversation, is shocking. I find it more shocking that a corporateshills/copyrightniggers found their way to here.

<COPYRIGHT IST GUD! Nosferatu was made a century ago. I'm glad the evil infringement was erased forever and little children can now sleep calmly! www.thevintagenews.com/2017/04/05/all-copies-of-the-cult-classic-nosferatu-were-ordered-to-be-destroyed-after-bram-stokers-widow-had-sued-the-makers-of-the-film-for-copyright-infringement/ https://archive.ph/5t8Fy >the widow of Bram Stoker, sued Prana Film, the studio which released Nosferatu >the judges declared that all copies of the movie are to be destroyed >a few copies of the film survived and were already sent overseas web.archive.org/web/20111013085354/http://www.film.com/movies/whats-the-big-deal-nosferatu-1922 https://archive.ph/NAEc2 >Stoker’s widow sued, successfully, for copyright infringement, and the court ordered that all copies of Nosferatu be destroyed >novel released in 1897 >author died in 1912 >film released in 1922 >changed names and shit >author's widow still got angry >not the dead author, but HIS WIFE >sued the not-Dracula film >court decision: NUKE IT FROM ORBIT >all copies destroyed >only saved by copies sent across the Atlantic >soundtrack lost

Pro and anti-copyright autists should be killed to be honest. Prove me wrong.

>>27115 Yes, copyjews and "Ownership is theft, you should let me rape your original idea like a muslim at a British girl's school" niggers deserve a firing squad.

>>26582 >Pepe the Frog is a prime example of a comic creator that was bothered by the remixed works being spread for both political and personal reasons. Normally, I respect a person's objection to seeing their work used for evil, but I don't think Pepe was ever really his to begin with. By that I mean that Landwolf and the two other dickheads are his and will remain so, but Pepe was always meant for bigger things, not Matt's stupid and purile stoner humor, and it's not our fault that the frog became the face of pushback against the (((society)))

>>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'.