Open Left

Well, IP attorneys

have been very creative of late in their arguments for extending copyright over anything and everything remotely attached to a corporate identity in perpetuity.

---

by: wobbly @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:21:50 AM CDT

Q: How long to copywrites last?

A: How old is Mickey Mouse?

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:13:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The two issues are apples and oranges- one doesn't logically

connect to the other. How does fucking over artists' ability to get paid end corporate hegemony? I agree that copyright's shouldn't be extended into infinity, but to put an end copyright would enable incredible exploitation of artists. For god's sake, corporate blandness is a reason to support small presses, labels, etc. It's not like they aren't out there.
        Maybe you've got a point I'm not seeing here, but, I'm sorry, I just don't give a damn about what happens to Spiderman one way or another. I have friends that have worked at Marvel- it's been a fucking factory farm for quite some time now.

---

by: sb @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 13:18:51 PM CDT

I agree with you completely. This is, in my estimation, the point exactly.

I have friends that have worked at Marvel- it's been a fucking factory farm for quite some time now.

This is exactly the point. Can you imagine what 4 billion dollars worth of scholarships, artists bonuses, writers conferences, wage improvements to creators would produce?

I am not decrying the 'owners' of the marvel copyrights windfall of cash, avalanche of loot, hurricane of coin, so much as how it represents the creator destroying, creation inhibiting, law deforming. fan crushing and art demeaning nature of the system it represents so well.

The RIAA has been suing grandmothers and children and teens in bankruptcy and misery with the aid of the FBI, Homeland Security and surveillance, while arrogantly abrogating rights to themselves AND AT EXACTLY the same time reducing the amounts it pays to artists on an almost continuous basis.

A copyright regime of a few years, fourteen was what the founders thought was a good reserve. Intellectual property Corporations now demand 100 years and some demand permanent control, with nothing ever passing into the "Public Domain"

The term is copyright, no matter my sarcasm, and it is meant to emphasize the right to copy. and some legal restrictions to promote creativity. as it was recognized that spread of information and culture was an obvious social good. The present regime, as you so corectly and personaly point out, is not doing that at all. If any thing it is decreasing creativity, destroying the spread of culture and commodifying even the most basic parts of a cultures common property.

you may be aware of the terrifically important civil rights documentary "Eyes on the Prize" which cannot be shown any more, because incidental music, playing while people marched, or spoke in an office, has no "rights" and without tens of millions of dollars in temporary 'rights' leasing, it will never be seen again.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 14:55:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes but i think the commenter's point was valid

it is the broader issue of ownership and control over the art that is the issue, not solely the copyright law angle.  Artists were being exploited before copyright became a public issue on this scale (excellent essay in Commodify Your Dissent on this), and they are being exploited now.  

However, I agree that a contemporary manifestation of this are the exaggerated claims of ownership that companies make rather than adjusting to technological realities; compare to what american worker and indian farmers were advised to do when their workplaces were being shut down or they were displaced from their homes- for some reason, if it's working people or poor poeple that are at issue t hey have to accept 'the inevitable' but when technoloical changess actually do make a change in business model inevitable, companies are allowed to skate by and, as you say, sue grandmothers.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:27:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]