What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
129 Comments
- dcmcderm, on 08/25/2008, -0/+134This article brought to you by Chester J. Lampwick
- kmartshopper, on 08/26/2008, -4/+128For all you idiots asking who cares - every one of you should. Mickey is a huge reason Disney has fought so hard to extend copyright protection. Every time the copyright has come up for expiration, the copyright law has been changed to allow them to continue using that god forsaken rat and not allow it to become public domain. It's past time the copyright die.
- zaii7, on 08/26/2008, -2/+106simpsons did it
- Idietired, on 08/26/2008, -0/+63"Although studio executives are not yet hurling themselves from the parapets of Sleeping Beauty's castle,"
Dugg, because that mental image is one of the best things I've read on the internet in a long time. - nicko68, on 08/26/2008, -0/+54Yeah, I love when she does that too.
- mrmiggidude, on 08/26/2008, -5/+52Someone's going to sue Disney for a hundred billion dollars. You know, just for a solid gold house and a rocket car.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -4/+48Free Mickey!
- CosmicJustice, on 08/26/2008, -1/+44More than a page of comments before we get one that's useful. Thank you.
- Murrabbit, on 08/26/2008, -3/+42This is hardly a problem. If there turns out to be a problem with Disney's copyright then they'll simply do what they've always done: Have the law re-written especially for them. It's worked quite well for them thus far.
- brickbat, on 08/26/2008, -11/+43One of the best sex sessions I ever had was with my girlfriend wearing mouse ears. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
- TonyTheTerrible, on 08/26/2008, -7/+33That's interesting, but I'm not reading 6 pages for what can be said in one.
- subliminali, on 08/26/2008, -3/+28mickey mouse was a total dick in 'steamboat willie'
- ufee, on 08/26/2008, -0/+22It would be long overdue. Honestly, things need to enter the public domain, not remain under control indefinitely.
But, is that what the article is about? - exspasticcomics, on 08/26/2008, -5/+27mickey mouse & donald duck should of been in public domain eons ago.. unfortunately- they are the grand symbols of everything that's wrong with the copyright system in this country-- hell.. disney itself is just an empty shell. in short.. a cooperate stock merger with tri-star in the 80's (tri-star's owned by columbia who in turn is owned by sony...) then the animation department was aloud to rot away & pixar & steve jobs replaced them. about the only thing that's even disney anymore is some big amusement park somewhere.. the cooperate entity that is known as 'disney' is just some weird facade .. some logo they stick on movies that they're afraid will only appeal to people under the age of 5.
- bosssmiley, on 08/26/2008, -0/+20Disney hasn't been a proper picture company since Walt died. Even more than in his era they're just an IP holding company with some very lucrative properties and infernally good PR.
Disney magic? Do you mean the copyright extension magic, the cracking down on 'unauthorised' use of characters you didn't even create magic, or the selling 40 year old movies for £20 thanks to a false scarcity policy magic?
***** the House of Mouse! - locojones, on 08/26/2008, -0/+18Assuming this is true, that the formalities required by the 1909 Copyright Act were not followed, all it means is that Steamboat Willie as a picture falls into the public domain, not Mickey Mouse himself, who is smartly protected by trademark law. So you would be legally allowed to copy, publicly perform, and make derivative works of Steamboat Willie, that's all fine and good, but you don't have rights to make new works or images that would infringe on the Mickey Mouse trade identity, which persists forever so long as it has continued use in commerce. That is the ultimate flash of brilliance. Whenever you're running out of copyright protection on an expression, if you can convert it into trademark protection by using it in commerce and getting people to associate it with your brand, then it persists for as long as you continue that association.
- imjustsayin, on 08/26/2008, -3/+20Disney owns Pixar, so your scenario doesn't make sense.
- badassninja, on 08/26/2008, -0/+14Disney sucks so much ass for pushing back the public domain. The Public Domain used to be set at 15 years... 15! This would allow companies to make new IP for the sake of making money but it would make for a rich public. There would be huge legal torrent sites right now that everyone and their grand mother would use, and if people like Disney didn't like that then they are welcome to make something better or different that people would be willing to pay for. Disney pushing back the public domain is one of the reasons that I am proud to be a pirate.
- PopcornDave, on 08/26/2008, -0/+13Medieval times maybe, but the early mid and late evil years are rarely taken in to account anymore by historians.
- CosmicJustice, on 08/26/2008, -4/+17Copyright and patent law in the US is out of control. Copyrights shouldn't last 60-70-100 years, and since the courts are complicit in this the only option left to us is to ignore them to the extent that we can without ending up in jail.
- bamafun, on 08/26/2008, -1/+14http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mickey22-200 ... Link to story on one page !
- Falsey, on 08/26/2008, -0/+10Look under the frame!
- MrTulip, on 08/26/2008, -1/+10i agree. copyrights should expire after 15 years like patents.
- markperia, on 08/26/2008, -1/+10you're new to the internet aren't you.
- dsmx, on 08/26/2008, -0/+9Free HAT
- badassninja, on 08/26/2008, -0/+8Show me using the doll where Mickey Mouse touched you.
- jec68, on 08/26/2008, -2/+10I hope that the US Postal Service hasn't been plagiarizing anything of Disney's...
- Diggnabbit, on 08/26/2008, -0/+8Well, that's true, but TM protection is a bit weaker. As the article points out, as long as you made clear that your work was NOT a Disney product, there would be no possibility of consumer confusion and thus not TM infringement.
- bamafun, on 08/26/2008, -1/+8http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mickey22-200 ... sorry... there is the 1 page link!
- usingpond, on 08/26/2008, -1/+8Get off of Digg you ***** furry.
- Elranzer, on 08/26/2008, -0/+7If you made a sex tape of that, don't release it. Disney may claim copyright.
- PurpleSfinx, on 08/26/2008, -0/+7I've seen this episode before...
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -1/+8Yeah? Put the iconic big circle with 2 others above it on any products in the toy/DVD aisle of your local store and look at it being sold out while a similar product right beside it doesn't.
- fuzzy889, on 08/26/2008, -1/+8Since when was ***** Mickey Mouse in The Jungle Book?
- EtherGnat, on 08/26/2008, -0/+6You're missing the fact that copyright is *meant* to expire; your suggestion would allow copyrights to exist indefinitely. Copyright (at least the way it was envisioned) was meant to benefit the public, not creators. It was thought that without copyright protection artists would not have an economic benefit to create, and the public would suffer.
The first copyright law, which gave a maximum 14-28 years of protection, gave a reasonable period for profit and then works entered the public domain. Public domain is important and helps to advance art in a number of ways.
Copyright has spiraled out of control, with copyright now lasting up to 120 years. Its just not the way it was supposed to work. - XeRoX2k2, on 08/26/2008, -1/+7laws don't exist that money can't change...it's been that way since midevil times
- Spartandog, on 08/26/2008, -1/+7I feel bad for Ub Iwerks, who never got the credit he deserved. He was the one who actually drew the first incarnation of Mickey Mouse, and also entirely animated Steamboat Willie, and almost all of the first Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony cartoons. He was also a brilliant technician who came up with many animation camera techniques. He was Disney's pencil for the first few years.
- XeRoX2k2, on 08/26/2008, -0/+6sounds like the RIAA,they don't make content for income they just sue people for that now
- Drazzim12, on 08/26/2008, -0/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TPbpvP-okM
- dungbeetle, on 08/26/2008, -0/+5The point is that we are letting a corporation rewrite our laws to suit their purposes. This isn't about Disney, it's about restoring integrity to the system.
- Abomonog, on 08/26/2008, -2/+7Doesn't anyone here realize the real flaw in the copyright arguments?
That is the "Mickey" we see in the 20's cartoons is not really Mickey Mouse. But in reality a character named Mortimer Mouse. The characters name was changed and looks slightly updated at the insistence of Disney's wife. - Travelsonic, on 08/26/2008, -0/+5"How? "
Simple,
instead of taking another course of action to protect the mouse icon of their corporation, Disney ***** with our laws. They extended copyright laws far beyond the original scope of a "limited time," and now, it is getting to be where a work can easily stay away from the public domain for over a hundred years. They take stories (in the public domain to begin with) and make them their own so much so that it isn't even easy to tell the ORIGINAL stories or use characters without Disney getting on our balls. They don't know where to end, and we as the public, users and creators of works and arts, suffer as a result. - vango, on 08/26/2008, -1/+6single page version
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mickey22-200 ... - pirategaspard, on 08/26/2008, -1/+6You know what else should be in the public domain? Happy *****' Birthday. Would be nice if the song that plays a large part in our American culture was owned by the American people.
- Travelsonic, on 08/26/2008, -0/+5Except then they will get away with ***** up our copyright law far beyond what it was ever meant to be.
- username7410, on 08/26/2008, -0/+5All of their movies are based on upon public domain works; Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.
- zeebo, on 08/26/2008, -1/+6If there is a problem with Mickey Mouse's copyright Disney will just buy new legislation to make sure that they're still in control of him. After all, twice before they've bought copyright extension legislation to keep him from entering public domain, I don't see why they would let some technicality take him away now.
- UbIwerks, on 08/26/2008, -0/+5Wah!?
Wait... I..... I OWN MICKEY!?!?!?!?! - inactive, on 08/26/2008, -1/+5I thought the Chester J Lampwick comment at the top was very useful in reminding me of Solid Gold Houses
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is