This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy with a comment on our post asking why the media is lamenting Disney’s loss of copyright instead of celebrating the public domain:
‘Copyright is for companies, not the public!’
The US spent so long with nothing entering the public domain and thereby fulfilling the ‘deal’ that is copyright that the idea that a major company might ‘lose’ control over something is seen as some heinous outcome rather than what should have happened decades ago.
Or, to put it another way, copyright has been erroneously framed as only being for copyright owners(who may or may not be creators) so often and for so long that the idea that the actual beneficiary is supposed to be the public has gotten lost to time, such that the idea that the public might benefit at the cost of the copyright owner is seen as a bug rather than a feature.
In second place, it’s Bergman with a comment about the Hertz horror stories that are piling up in the class action suit over false theft accusations:
One false report is a crime, Hertz has made hundreds, possibly thousands
So why is it, that if the criminal penalty for filing ONE false report can be as high as 6-12 months imprisonment in most states, or even be a felony in a few, that none of the people following Hertz’s official policy to file false reports has been arrested, charged or prosecuted?
Last I checked, an organization that makes it official policy to commit crimes is classified as a criminal organization under the RICO Act. Why is Hertz still in business after showing a pattern of crimes being official policy?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we tie those two together with one more comment from Bergman, this time in response to the first place winning comment:
I’ve run into that attitude a fair amount as an on-again, off-again amateur photographer.
When I take a photo, the copyright on that photo is mine. But if I do an especially good job on it, I won’t be able to get it printed at any professional copy or print shop that doesn’t offer self-service machines, because the professional shops will all inform me that they cannot print copyrighted material without permission from the rights holder – and nothing I say will convince them that I am the rights holder to my own work.
Even a copy of a copyright registration won’t sway them.
Because copyrights are for companies, not individuals, apparently.
Next, it’s Thad passing on a simple response to the dust-up over Hulu blocking political ads:
As Popehat put it:
The people making and offering issue ads, Hulu declining to run them, and people cancelling Hulu as a result are all exercising free speech.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is The Bananananaman with what I certainly hope is a satirical comment (but otherwise is just funny for being so wrong) about Disney and copyright:
You’re sounding like a monstrous Republican with your anti-Disney rhetoric and support of the public domain. “Sweetheart deals” aren’t a thing. It’s just a stupid term made up by monstrous Republicans. If anything, Mickey Mouse and all other forms of media should be protected FROM the public domain! The more stuff that enters the public domain, the more people will be lazy and just copy stuff from it rather than create all new stuff.
In second place, it’s Toom1275 with a comment on our explainer post about the Twitter/Musk fight:
This article would make Musk psychophants very upset if they could read.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more short comment about the media’s reaction to Disney and copyright, this time from an anonymous commenter:
Whose astroturf campaign may i say is calling?
Finally, it’s another anonymous comment, this time on our post about the Girl Scouts settling their trademark suit with Scouts BSA:
So the takeaway here is that BSA weren’t prepared, and did not in fact do their best?
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon