|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jul 4, 2020 16:52:53 GMT
Taken from The Coliseum Asshattery Forever...Should a company be obliged to sell old and potentially outdated material indefinitely? Obliged? Absolutely not. Indefinitely? Ditto. However.... I think that if a product (idea, method, composition, etc) is allowed to lay dormant and unpublished/uncreated long enough, another company should be allowed to seize the Copyright and renew/begin production or service. There should be some level of required financial remuneration for the seizure of Rights, but I'm strongly against companies creating or acquiring Copyright for the purpose of withholding those ideas from publication* (I have the same feelings about Patent abuse and Trademarks - though Trademark is really easy to lose so I'm mostly against any laws seeking to strengthen it). * Or in this case, deciding years later that Song of the South Oriental Adventures shall never be seen again. Sidenote, I love breaking Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 5, 2020 2:07:18 GMT
Taken from The Coliseum Asshattery Forever...Should a company be obliged to sell old and potentially outdated material indefinitely? Obliged? Absolutely not. Indefinitely? Ditto. However.... I think that if a product (idea, method, composition, etc) is allowed to lay dormant and unpublished/uncreated long enough, another company should be allowed to seize the Copyright and renew/begin production or service. There should be some level of required financial remuneration for the seizure of Rights, but I'm strongly against companies creating or acquiring Copyright for the purpose of withholding those ideas from publication* (I have the same feelings about Patent abuse and Trademarks - though Trademark is really easy to lose so I'm mostly against any laws seeking to strengthen it). * Or in this case, deciding years later that Song of the South Oriental Adventures shall never be seen again. Sidenote, I love breaking Betteridge's Law of Headlines. Copyright is a social good. The abusive system corporations have lobbied into existence for themselves is not. On the gripping hand, though, Mickey would be public domain now if not for those lobbied rules, and I love Disney World, which wouldn't exist otherwise, so... torn? Perhaps if an owner is actively using the copyright, it remains, but if they don't for a period (reasonable in length, whatever that means), it reverts to public domain? Of course, that's what we have now where movie studios just brush off an IP they want to keep and do a half-assed reboot to keep it fresh. |
|
|
|
Post by Lanefan on Jul 8, 2020 4:04:07 GMT
The advent of the internet has rendered many forms of copyright largely toothless (and-or pointless) - if you want it bad enough you'll find it online for free. Individuals don't have the resources to enforce copyright, and (some, not all) corporations have selfishly twisted the concept to serve their own ends.
The corporations who buy up patents or patent-owning companies just to block the product/IP/invention from distribution and-or get it off the market should be put out of business without a second's remorse. Ditto the shitheads who buy up .urls and domain names just to resell them at a (sometimes-exorbitant) profit, with no intention of ever in fact using them.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jul 8, 2020 14:24:11 GMT
The advent of the internet has rendered many forms of copyright largely toothless (and-or pointless) - if you want it bad enough you'll find it online for free. Individuals don't have the resources to enforce copyright, and (some, not all) corporations have selfishly twisted the concept to serve their own ends. The corporations who buy up patents or patent-owning companies just to block the product/IP/invention from distribution and-or get it off the market should be put out of business without a second's remorse. Ditto the shitheads who buy up .urls and domain names just to resell them at a (sometimes-exorbitant) profit, with no intention of ever in fact using them. The companies that are patent trolls - yes kill them with fire. They produce nothing and add no value. People who are forward thinking enough to buy up domain names, however, should be rewarded for their gamble. They could end up wasting money if their gamble doesn't pan out. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jul 8, 2020 21:34:36 GMT
The advent of the internet has rendered many forms of copyright largely toothless (and-or pointless) - if you want it bad enough you'll find it online for free. Individuals don't have the resources to enforce copyright, and (some, not all) corporations have selfishly twisted the concept to serve their own ends. The corporations who buy up patents or patent-owning companies just to block the product/IP/invention from distribution and-or get it off the market should be put out of business without a second's remorse. Ditto the shitheads who buy up .urls and domain names just to resell them at a (sometimes-exorbitant) profit, with no intention of ever in fact using them. The companies that are patent trolls - yes kill them with fire. They produce nothing and add no value. People who are forward thinking enough to buy up domain names, however, should be rewarded for their gamble. They could end up wasting money if their gamble doesn't pan out. Cybersquatting also produces nothing and adds no value. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jul 8, 2020 21:41:45 GMT
The companies that are patent trolls - yes kill them with fire. They produce nothing and add no value. People who are forward thinking enough to buy up domain names, however, should be rewarded for their gamble. They could end up wasting money if their gamble doesn't pan out. Cybersquatting also produces nothing and adds no value. Maybe so, but free markets allow it, so take advantage of it. |
|
Should a company be obliged to sell old and potentially outdated material indefinitely? Obliged? Absolutely not. Indefinitely? Ditto.
