So Disney can steal the work of amateur animators and not pay them a dime. Great.
Disney originally got rich from animating public domain stories, like Cinderella and Snow White. These were the popular stories of the day that people grew up with. Now after nearly a century of Disney, who has bought Star Wars and Marvel, Disney owns all the stories people grow up with. They built up their IP moat using public domain stories, and have used IP law to maintain their incumbency.
To me, the solution is to let the cycle repeat. Let the next animation company start making stories about Spidier-Man or Luke Skywalker. Sure, keep the trademarks so you can't say "Marvels™ Spidier-Man", but John Smith should be able to take a crack at his version of Spider-Man just like Walt got his version of Cinderella.
Re:Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor
by chordalkeyboard on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:03PM
(#25641562)
> So Disney can steal the work of amateur animators and not pay them a dime. Great.
I'm pretty sure they'd have to hire their own animators in order to produce a product to sell. Theft is still a crime, we would be removing Disney's ability to use the police to shut down the work of amateur animators.
Disney does this already and will bury you in legal fees if you try to prevent it. Repealing IP laws would level the playing field.
Funny you mention this. Disney is stealing the work of others and refusing to pay them royalties anyway:
https://www.denofgeek.com/books/disney-refuses-to-pay-royalt...
Or you can "steal" disney's and not pay them a dime. Great.
Re:Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor
by harimau777 on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:33PM
(#25641337)
I think that many creators would struggle to benefit if their creations can be trivially copied by others.
Re:Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor
by chordalkeyboard on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:05PM
(#25641577)
They might struggle to sell licenses to their ideas, given that license is merely permission to perform a trivial task they are equally prepared to perform sans license, they could always benefit by selling their creative labor as work on the market.
Re:Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor
by harimau777 on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @03:01PM
(#25650271)
That would mean that artists were only able to make money if they are working directly for someone else. That doesn't seem fair.
Re:Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor
by chordalkeyboard on Wednesday January 06, 2021 @01:17AM
(#25655084)
> That would mean that artists were only able to make money if they are working directly for someone else.
Nonsense, they can sell their own artwork too.
This is a mis-statement of the anti-IP case. Given the abolishment of IP laws, creators are not prevented from benefitting from their invention. They merely no longer have the benefit of the state regulators in preventing others from following the inventor's example.
> Including any monetary benefits if they so choose.
The "monetary benefit" here is the power to exclude others from manufacturing the invention with the power of the state, and to compel society at large to pay for enforcement of this monopoly.