929
submitted 1 month ago by moe90@feddit.nl to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I am not going to split hairs about whether the commoner would use copyright back in 1710. You know they would not.

For the privilege of copyright your idea must be truly unique to deprive others the right to use it. Perhaps you have never thought through the reality of creating artificial scarcity.

Your elaborate strawman is apparently copyright is needed for the arts which I have pointed out is not true and I had thought you agreed with.

We will never know if the creator of Calvin and Hobbes choose not license merchandising for the reality they could have been hit with trademark infringement.

Certainly if Nintendo can go after Palworld, Disney could have come after Calvin and Hobbes. This is all I was alluding to.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Almost everything you've said is just factually incorrect. We know why Calvin and Hobbes wasn't franchised; in Bill Waterson's own words, he wanted to, "write every word, draw every line, color every Sunday strip, and paint every book illustration," not, "run a corporate empire." His publisher had no worries about copyright infringement though, and pressured him to franchise.

Also, there was no chance he would have run into trademark issues because that's not what trademark means. Trademark is a name, copyright is the content. Trademark is why I can open a restaurant called Spider-Man, copyright is why I can't publish my own Spider-Man comics. While we're at it, Nintendo is suing Palworld for Patent violations, not copyright, so this has nothing to do with the similarity of the characters, it has to do with some game mechanic that Nintendo believes is proprietary technology.

Finally, the average working class person wasn't writing, but they were consuming printed media, and that's why publishers were making so much money off of authors. That's why copyright mattered. Copyright only lasted 14 years, with the option to renew it for another 14, and its sole purpose was to break up the publishers' monopoly. The idea that it was designed to create an artificial scarcity of ideas is an ahistorical conspiracy theory that you've dreamed up.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Looks like you are just spinning your wheels at this point. No, trademark is not just name. I suggest looking it up if you are not sure about it.

The fact that you can't accept that copyright creates artificial scarcity just shows that you don't really understand what it means. That is okay, it is clear you have not put a lot of thought into it.

Nice talking with you.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
929 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59298 readers
1818 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS