Comments on: The Mickey Mouse Copyright Protection Act of 2007? http://dealfatigue.com/2007/07/08/the-mickey-mouse-copyright-protection-act-of-2007/ Just Minding My Business Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:03:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: PLK http://dealfatigue.com/2007/07/08/the-mickey-mouse-copyright-protection-act-of-2007/#comment-10 PLK Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:33:36 +0000 http://dealfatigue.com/?p=5#comment-10 Thanks for the comment. However, I disagree that this issue is not compelling (at least if you don't compare it to global warming or poverty). Corporate greed is driving the extension of copyright and abrogating one of the basic tenants of the law which is to encourage creators - not necessarily owners - of copyright to share their creations with the rest of society without concern that somebody else will make a buck off their backs. Thanks for the comment. However, I disagree that this issue is not compelling (at least if you don’t compare it to global warming or poverty). Corporate greed is driving the extension of copyright and abrogating one of the basic tenants of the law which is to encourage creators - not necessarily owners - of copyright to share their creations with the rest of society without concern that somebody else will make a buck off their backs.

]]> By: vdovault http://dealfatigue.com/2007/07/08/the-mickey-mouse-copyright-protection-act-of-2007/#comment-9 vdovault Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:52:25 +0000 http://dealfatigue.com/?p=5#comment-9 Geez I was back in law school when the Bono extension was being debated and my most wonderful copyright professor (Craig Joyce) and Larry Lessig were pretty much calling this as I see it: limitless corporate welfare. Your colleague Sussman has sort of addressed in his letter the importance of derivative works and compilations without using the technical legal terms as such. Besides when copying becomes basically a zero cost activity (as it had when Sonny Bono was debated) the smarter approach is one advocated by folks like John Perry Barlow and working to toughen the trademark and servicemark laws and relying more heavily on them (and also perhaps on the Lanham Act) rather than having a conniption fit everytime someone makes a copy. Of course if yet another copyright extension act passes those of us who know something about entertainment and intellectual property laws can also get a piece of the welfare pie. But frankly it's not the most interesting of legal questions. Geez I was back in law school when the Bono extension was being debated and my most wonderful copyright professor (Craig Joyce) and Larry Lessig were pretty much calling this as I see it: limitless corporate welfare.

Your colleague Sussman has sort of addressed in his letter the importance of derivative works and compilations without using the technical legal terms as such.

Besides when copying becomes basically a zero cost activity (as it had when Sonny Bono was debated) the smarter approach is one advocated by folks like John Perry Barlow and working to toughen the trademark and servicemark laws and relying more heavily on them (and also perhaps on the Lanham Act) rather than having a conniption fit everytime someone makes a copy.

Of course if yet another copyright extension act passes those of us who know something about entertainment and intellectual property laws can also get a piece of the welfare pie. But frankly it’s not the most interesting of legal questions.

]]>