Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 06-24-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

It seems to me that copyright could find a legitimate middle ground somewhere.

For example.

You grant a work of art - lets just use a book as an example - a copyright for a period of time. Again for example's sake we will say 50 years. So you write book and you own the copyright on the book for 50 years. After that 50 years is up the copyright becomes semi-public domain. What I mean is that you still control the copyright in terms of making money from the work, but when it comes to educational, scientific or artistic study the work is in public domain.

This way if a publisher wants to create a special 50th anniversary edition of the book and put it out in stores, you still get paid. But if a school wants to use the book as a learning tool, you don't get paid. If a school wants to put on a play based on your book, you don't get paid, but if a movie company wants to make a movie of your book you do.

This would allow those who had legitimate educational interests in the book the ability to access and use it without cost, but those who wanted to make money off of it would still have deal with the original copyright owner.

so you want the current rights under fair use to apply only to semi-public domain.

even though fair use is the condition you agreed to to get your exclusive rights.

WTF.

gideongallery · 06-24-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You idiot.
Number one...I'm not asking for "government granted" anything! The govt. doesn't create ANYTHING. Kinda like you.

really so the government did create a law called the copyright act which gives you the "Exclusive" right to sell your content for a limited period of time.

that the government granted monopoly.

Quote:

Second...Henry Ford didn't have a monopoly on car production. But he goddamn sure owned FORD. Just like Irving Berlin doesn't have a monopoly on music. But he damn sure owns HIS music.

but he created the first horseless carriage, if the same rules against derivation were allowed for that ip as copyright no one else would be able to produce a similar device.

that the point, your argueing for a monopoly that does not exist for anything else.

Quote:

You are completely retarded gideongallery. You have no idea what you are even typing. Your intelligence level is very, very low my friend. You keep babbling on and on about subjects that you are ignorant of.

Don't you understand that all these "facts" that you find on bit torrent forums are highly biased towards your point of view (stealing)?

so then agree to allow me to charge you 10,000 times as much for my solution.

if you truely believed the shit your spouting i should have a right to deny you and you alone access to the solution if i come up with it.

fair use doesn't allow me to do that, so i need your permission.

VGeorgie · 06-24-2010, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

read the case again no where did it say anything about keeping the data private was necessary

It ABSOLUTELY says this. The case hinged on the subscriber, who has legal access rights to the material - in this case by merit of paying a subscription fee - makes his or her own copy. The physical location of the copy is irrelevant. The court points out several times that "the use of a distinct copy affects the transmit clause."

The distinct copy is private. It can't be anything but.

Don Pueblo · 06-24-2010, 06:38 PM

i apologize to all of you, i timeshifted into the past and bashed gideon in the head with a shovel. this is the reason he's fucked in the head. i apologize to you all.

kane · 06-24-2010, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so you want the current rights under fair use to apply only to semi-public domain.

even though fair use is the condition you agreed to to get your exclusive rights.

WTF.

No. I want a 100% monopoly on the rights to my work for a set period of time. My example said 50 years which I think is fair. After that period if someone wants to use my work for educational, artistic or scientific study they are free to use it without paying me a dime and can do with it as they please as long as they don't use it to make money. If someone wants to use my work to make money (IE creating a 50th anniversary edition of my book or making a movie from my book) I would still be entitled to payment and still have control over it. If I am dead whoever I pass the rights to in my will would the control my monopoly.

To me this is fair. Those who want to use my work for school or art or whatever and are not planning on making a profit with it can do so, but I still get paid from those who want to use it for profit.

gideongallery · 06-24-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

It ABSOLUTELY says this. The case hinged on the subscriber, who has legal access rights to the material - in this case by merit of paying a subscription fee - makes his or her own copy. The physical location of the copy is irrelevant. The court points out several times that "the use of a distinct copy affects the transmit clause."

but that my point and that why it exactly the same as the torrent swarm

cable vision used the public internet to deliver the copy too

the public nature of the transmission did not invalidate the timeshifting.

it was not a completely private network, with dedicated hard bound lines to your house,

cablevisions cloud included the internet, local bgp peers, local cable loops the settop box and the remote servers.

many of those parts were public in nature.

the point was that transmission not the broadcast was public
the transmission delivered a private copy, which was played in the privacy of the subcribers home.

the fact that it was possible if you had the skill to hack the data stream and take a copy without paying did not make cable vision offering illegal.

Quote:

The distinct copy is private. It can't be anything but.

but that the point the distinct copy in the case of the swarm is also private

if i press play, on the copy i downloaded, it play for me only
if i press pause it pauses for me only

the swarm is public, but the distinct copy is private

just like cable vision transmission is public but the distinct copy that is being played is private.

gideongallery · 06-24-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

No. I want a 100% monopoly on the rights to my work for a set period of time. My example said 50 years which I think is fair. After that period if someone wants to use my work for educational, artistic or scientific study they are free to use it without paying me a dime and can do with it as they please as long as they don't use it to make money. If someone wants to use my work to make money (IE creating a 50th anniversary edition of my book or making a movie from my book) I would still be entitled to payment and still have control over it. If I am dead whoever I pass the rights to in my will would the control my monopoly.

To me this is fair. Those who want to use my work for school or art or whatever and are not planning on making a profit with it can do so, but I still get paid from those who want to use it for profit.

non commercial copying is currently allowed while you have your exclusive right in full effect
they extend to a lot more then just education /scientific study.

you just criminalized vcr/tivo/ mp3 players for not only the current term they are allowed, but for all time.

gideongallery · 07-06-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I already showed you in an earlier thread that that statement is a complete fucking lie. YOU are a liar gideongallery.

Anybody can quickly google up Snow White and see that Snow White was a fairy tale told in many European countries for centuries. And then compiled by the Brothers Grimm in the early 1800's

It's called a TRADITIONAL fairy tale because NOBODY KNOWS WHO FIRST TOLD IT. Just like a "trad" blues isn't "public domain" either you idiot. It's considered to be something universal that just "is". What an idiot you are gideongallery.

Nothing in this court case would have affected Disney from writing their own version (which is what they did) based on a TRADITIONAL FAIRY TALE

care to explain why the first printing has a copyright notice then

the brothers grim did just retell the old stories the COMBINED multiple versions into a single unique story. That why it was worthy of being copyright. The original stories that the merged were public domain. That what allowed them to merge them to derive new copyrighted works.

disney was able to make a movie based on the work because it became public domain after the copyright expired

Quote:

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ki..._I_A_ 001.jpg

if public domain get reverse and put back into the copyright monopoly then the permutation of combined elements from the original story that was the brother grim version would be illegal to derive from.

That would most certainly effect disney snow white which used the key elements (mirror, dwarfs, poison apple, sleep) that grim used.

for the record the snow white fairy tale which featured the apple that grims brother used as the apple was cursed not poisoned, snow white choked to death, and the robbers (not dwarfs) used her death to rally the peasents to over throw the evil queen and killed her.

gideongallery · 07-06-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

care to explain why the first printing has a copyright notice then

the brothers grim did just retell the old stories the COMBINED multiple versions into a single unique story. That why it was worthy of being copyright. The original stories that the merged were public domain. That what allowed them to merge them to derive new copyrighted works.

disney was able to make a movie based on the work because it became public domain after the copyright expired

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ki..._I_A_ 001.jpg

if public domain get reverse and put back into the copyright monopoly then the permutation of combined elements from the original story that was the brother grim version would be illegal to derive from.

That would most certainly effect disney snow white which used the key elements (mirror, dwarfs, poison apple, sleep) that grim used.

for the record the snow white fairy tale which featured the apple that grims brother used as the apple was cursed not poisoned, snow white choked to death, and the robbers (not dwarfs) used her death to rally the peasents to over throw the evil queen and killed her.

interesting how robbie is all silent now that the first page of the book is presented.

Zyber · 07-06-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

care to explain why the first printing has a copyright notice then

Gideon, care to show where this copyright notice is?

The text in German says nothing about copyright.

A quick translation into English

Quote:

Children and housemaids

Collected by the Grimm brothers

First bound edition

Huge task

With two coppers

The fourth increased and improved edition

Göttingen,
Printed and published by the Dieterich bookshop
1840

Please show where this hidden copyright notice is.

Zyber · 07-06-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

care to explain why the first printing has a copyright notice then

The image you posted says it is the "fourth and improved edition"

Do you simply make up your "facts", Gideon?

Robbie · 07-06-2010, 05:38 PM

Gideongallery is a blithering idiot in case y'all hadn't noticed.

He will twist and bend anything to try and feel justified for the FACT that he is nothing more than a thief defending thieves.

I've flushed things down the toilet who are more productive to society than gideongallery.

kane · 07-06-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I've flushed things down the toilet who are more productive to society than gideongallery.

Of all the funny things you have said in random Gideon threads, this may be the funniest of them all. I nearly fell out my chair laughing.

Socks · 07-06-2010, 07:01 PM

Who bumped this old thread?

Oh shit it's NEW? I swear I've seen this before! lolz

Gideon, if I went to a friend's party, and nobody liked me, and everything I said was torn apart and laughed at, I would probably stop attending their parties.

What makes you keep coming back here exactly? Isn't there another place to spend thousands of hours discussing your ideas among people who have a chance of agreeing with you?

gideongallery · 07-06-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyber

Gideon, care to show where this copyright notice is?

The text in German says nothing about copyright.

A quick translation into English

Please show where this hidden copyright notice is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

Quote:

The Statute of Anne had a much broader social focus and remit than the monopoly granted to the Stationers' Company. The statute was concerned with the reading public, the continued production of useful literature, and the advancement and spread of education. The central plank of the statute is a social quid pro quo; to encourage "learned men to compose and write useful books" the statute guaranteed the finite right to print and reprint those works. It established a pragmatic bargain involving authors, the booksellers and the public.[9] The Statute of Anne ended the old system whereby only literature that met the censorship standards administered by the booksellers could appear in print. The statute furthermore created a public domain for literature, as previously all literature belonged to the booksellers forever.[10]

According to Patterson and Lindberg, the Statute of Anne:

"... transformed the stationers' copyright - which had been used as a device of monopoly and an instrument of censorship - into a trade-regulation concept to promote learning and to curtail the monopoly of publishers... The features of the Statute of Anne that justify the epithet of trade regulation included the limited term of copyright, the availability of copyright to anyone, and the price-control provisions. Copyright, rather than being perpetual, was now limited to a term of fourteen years, with a like renewal term being available only to the author (and only if the author were living at the end of the first term)."[10]

you have to understand the law of the time to understand how a declaration of a publisher was the copyright notice.

any if you understand the law of the time you know that public domain was actually created BY the statute of ANNE

which is the exact opposite of what Robbie was trying to argue.

iseeyou · 07-06-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

you have to understand the law of the time to understand how a declaration of a publisher was the copyright notice.

Did you actually read that wikipedia link?

According to the wikipedia link, "the statute specified that action against infringement could only be brought if the title had been entered in the register at the Stationers' Company before publication"

In order to be granted a (enforceable) copyright, it was not sufficient to only print a book and show, who is the publisher. It was required to register the book, before publication, at the Stationers' Company.

If the book was not entered into the registry at the Stationers' Company, then it seems it received no protection under the statute of Anne (according to wikipedia). And also according to wikipedia, registration should have been done before publication began.

Seems to me, if I wanted to show a copyright notice on a book in 18century Great Britian, I would show, on my book, the index number where my book title can be found in the registry at the Stationers' Company so that people can verify that my book is registered and is eligible for copyright protection under the Statute of Anne.

Not showing any information about copyright status, on a published book, is a very very poor way to declare copyright.

No copyright notice ...... is not a copyright notice ...... but it might still have copyrights (even without a notice) by default. For example, you cant legally kill me because I have some legal rights to live, even though there is no notice on my body or clothes about these legal rights.

Robbie · 07-06-2010, 10:46 PM

And not only that...but as I ALREADY showed gideon"can't get my fact straight"gallery in another thread...
That fairy tale was already a TRADITIONAL story BEFORE the Grimms ever published it. They didn't even know who originally made it up.

Gideongallery. You are without a doubt the dumbest person I've ever encountered in my life.

Zyber · 07-07-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
you have to understand the law of the time to understand how a declaration of a publisher was the copyright notice.

Hm. Okay, let's take a look at the link you posted..

Quote:

The Statute of Anne, short title Copyright Act 1709 8 Anne c.19; long title An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned, was the first copyright statute in the Kingdom of Great Britain (thus the United Kingdom, see Copyright law of the United Kingdom). It was enacted in 1709 and entered into force on 10 April 1710. It is generally considered to be the first fully-fledged copyright statute. It is named for Queen Anne, during whose reign it was enacted.

Ha ha. So Gideon is telling that the laws of Great Britain apply in Germany?

Just FYI, those are two seperate countries with their own laws.

Gideon, here is a historical map from 1709. As you can see, just like today, Germany never was part of Great Britain.

Source: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/p...atlas1709.html

EliteWebmaster · 07-07-2010, 03:59 AM

Interesting thread

gideongallery · 07-07-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And not only that...but as I ALREADY showed gideon"can't get my fact straight"gallery in another thread...
That fairy tale was already a TRADITIONAL story BEFORE the Grimms ever published it. They didn't even know who originally made it up.

Gideongallery. You are without a doubt the dumbest person I've ever encountered in my life.

prove it show me one publication of grimms fairy tales that include all the different versions of the story in a single publication.

grimms didn't simply retell the oral stories in writing

grimms combined multiple fairy tales into one.

in fact the story got revised /changed between printings

Quote:

Many changes through the editions ? such as turning the wicked mother of the first edition in Snow White and Hansel and Gretel to a stepmother

the fact that multiple stories existed before in oral tradition doesn't automatically make the merging of those stories public domain

if it did disney's snow white would also be public domain.

gideongallery · 07-07-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyber

Hm. Okay, let's take a look at the link you posted..

Ha ha. So Gideon is telling that the laws of Great Britain apply in Germany?

Just FYI, those are two seperate countries with their own laws.

Gideon, here is a historical map from 1709. As you can see, just like today, Germany never was part of Great Britain.

Source: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/p...atlas1709.html

actually moron you might want to read the highlighted portion

the statute of anne changed the default term of copyright

Quote:

The Statute of Anne had a much broader social focus and remit than the monopoly granted to the Stationers' Company. The statute was concerned with the reading public, the continued production of useful literature, and the advancement and spread of education. The central plank of the statute is a social quid pro quo; to encourage "learned men to compose and write useful books" the statute guaranteed the finite right to print and reprint those works. It established a pragmatic bargain involving authors, the booksellers and the public.[9] The Statute of Anne ended the old system whereby only literature that met the censorship standards administered by the booksellers could appear in print. The statute furthermore created a public domain for literature, as previously all literature belonged to the booksellers forever.[10]

According to Patterson and Lindberg, the Statute of Anne:

"... transformed the stationers' copyright - which had been used as a device of monopoly and an instrument of censorship - into a trade-regulation concept to promote learning and to curtail the monopoly of publishers... The features of the Statute of Anne that justify the epithet of trade regulation included the limited term of copyright, the availability of copyright to anyone, and the price-control provisions. Copyright, rather than being perpetual, was now limited to a term of fourteen years, with a like renewal term being available only to the author (and only if the author were living at the end of the first term)."[10]

so germany was covered by the old stationers monopoly which is exactly as i said it was.
specifically because it was not part ....

iseeyou · 07-07-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so germany was covered by the old stationers monopoly which is exactly as i said it was.
specifically because it was not part ....

According to wikipedia, even after the statute of Anne, the stationers company continued to have a legal monopoly to register (or not register) books in 18century Great Britian. If the stationers company refused to accept your book into their registry, then you received no copyright enforcement in Great Britian, unless you could compel/force them to register your book. This is my interpretation from the very limited info on wikipedia.

Gideon, you really should research old German copyright law if you want to know the truth about the historical copyrights of old German books (in Germany of course). Dont just guess and assume it's similar/same as in Great Britian.

Zyber · 07-07-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

actually moron you might want to read the highlighted portion

the statute of anne changed the default term of copyright

...

so germany was covered by the old stationers monopoly which is exactly as i said it was.
specifically because it was not part ....

Gideon, are you high? Your post is total madness.

Nowhere in that text you highlighted does it even mention Germany.

How can you reach such insane conclusions? That is impossible!

Your text still talks only about the laws in Great Britain, and has nothing to do with the laws in Germany.

I think I will have to agree with Robbie...

gideongallery · 07-07-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyber

Gideon, are you high? Your post is total madness.

Nowhere in that text you highlighted does it even mention Germany.

How can you reach such insane conclusions? That is impossible!

Your text still talks only about the laws in Great Britain, and has nothing to do with the laws in Germany.

I think I will have to agree with Robbie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iseeyou

According to wikipedia, even after the statute of Anne, the stationers company continued to have a legal monopoly to register (or not register) books in 18century Great Britian. If the stationers company refused to accept your book into their registry, then you received no copyright enforcement in Great Britian, unless you could compel/force them to register your book. This is my interpretation from the very limited info on wikipedia.

Gideon, you really should research old German copyright law if you want to know the truth about the historical copyrights of old German books (in Germany of course). Dont just guess and assume it's similar/same as in Great Britian.

you two need to learn a little history for countries outside the united states

German inventor Johannes Gutenberg "invented" the printing press in 1440
1446 Gutenberg prints the "Poem of the Last Judgment"
1448 Gutenberg prints the "Calendar for 1448"
1450 Gutenberg' formed a partnership with the wealthy Johann Fust
1450 Gutenberg begins work on a Bible, the first is 40 lines per page.
1452 Gutenberg begins printing the 42-line Bible in two volumes.
1454 Gutenberg prints indulgences (notes sold to Christians by the Pope, pardoning their sins)
1455 First block-printed Bible, the Biblia Pauperum, published in Germany.
1455 Gutenberg completed work on what is estimated to be 200 copies of the Bible

the process did expand across all of europe, with kings and queens using it to print their messages to their subjects.

the process also allowed disedents and heretics to publish their works as well and as a result the stationers monopoly was created as a result of the laws that were designed to criminalize the unauthorized publication.

germany was the first to establish such laws, which only make sense since the technology was born in that country.

The problem was that this monopoly which prevented work from being published unless the stationers authorized it created an economic serfdom amoung authors. Rather then stationers competing against each other to pay authors the most money for the right to publish a book, they colluded with each other to keep royalties as low as possible

The statute of ANNE, was drafted to solve that problem, educators would rather teach then publish because of that monopoly. The act was designed from the very begining to create lit public domain.

while britian was the first to enable such a law, with educators, moving and publishing their works in brittian to gain the benefit of such ideal, other countries were forced to follow suit or lose the intelectual capital.

i believe germany was the 7 country to adopt similar statutes.

Zyber · 07-07-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you two need to learn a little history for countries outside the united states

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

i believe germany was the 7 country to adopt similar statues.

You can believe in UFO's... I wouldn't be surprised at all...

CrkMStanz · 07-07-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

... everything giddyboy has said....

your arguements are still moronic giddyboy

Disney made it their own - they did the work, funded the production, paid all the salaries, did original animations, altered the storyline, distributed, and yes - profited from THEIR work

Disney DID NOT just grab the Grimm text (or any other complete unabridged or unedited work) slap their name on it, surround it with advertising and sell it.

Disney used a public domain work and made it their own, establishing their own copyright for THEIR work, NOT for the 'original unedited story' - anyone can 'remake it' by doing the work, funding the production, pay all the salaries, do original animations (or make it live action), alter the storyline, distribute, and yes - profit from THEIR work - because it becomes a new ORIGINAL work.

Your plan is to just grab Disneys movie print of Snow White, slap it on a torrent with ads to your vendors and call it a day.

What we (The actual content producers of the world) are arguing for is an exclusive right to distribute/sell OUR own work - and will accept a limited time frame to do it in even - but the important part is EXCLUSIVE (but limited time)

Your plan is that copyright grants us an 'exclusive' right to do so but our exclusive rights only last as long as it takes to post the work - after that its an automatic free-for-all for anyone who wants to profit from it - they don't have to re-work it, comment on it, or do anything at all to it - just post and surround by ads.

well....

fuck you... and anyone who is like you.

we aren't asking for much - crap, I'd take 2 years of exclusive, backed by full governmental laws and policing.

none of this bullshit DMCA 'I have to personally catch the 100K websites doing it and send a notice politely asking them to stop please, and I have to do it for each link they provide, and I have to do it again tomorrow because they just re-up it'

I want to see a central worldwide reporting system backed by 3 strikes that extends to uploaders, site owners, hosts, ISP's and everyone else involved in the theiving scam pirate world.

again... just for emphasis

fuck you

Robbie · 07-07-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And not only that...but as I ALREADY showed gideon"can't get my fact straight"gallery in another thread...
That fairy tale was already a TRADITIONAL story BEFORE the Grimms ever published it. They didn't even know who originally made it up.

Gideongallery. You are without a doubt the dumbest person I've ever encountered in my life.

Just wanted to reiterate that post.

gideongallery · 07-07-2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Just wanted to reiterate that post.

your either a world class moron who can't do research properly

or you deliberately ignore fact to make a bogus claim

from the wikipedia article on the grimm fairy tales

Quote:

The first volumes were much criticized because, although they were called "Children's Tales", they were not regarded as suitable for children, both for the scholarly information included and the subject matter.[1] Many changes through the editions ? such as turning the wicked mother of the first edition in Snow White and Hansel and Gretel to a stepmother, were probably made with an eye to such suitability.

even if you were a complete moron who never bothered to look at the "scholarly information included" which clearly defined the multiple varients of the story that were merged into the single "snow white" story

the story of change from mother to step mother would have been enough to make it a non public domain derivation.

since disney's snow white didn't make her the mother as the original "traditional" fairy tale had stated but instead used the Grimm "stepmother" version your entire arguement is proven to be total and utter bullshit.

Disney didn't use the "oral" snow white they used the grimm fairy tale version.

gideongallery · 07-07-2010, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

your arguements are still moronic giddyboy

Disney made it their own - they did the work, funded the production, paid all the salaries, did original animations, altered the storyline, distributed, and yes - profited from THEIR work

Disney DID NOT just grab the Grimm text (or any other complete unabridged or unedited work) slap their name on it, surround it with advertising and sell it.

Disney used a public domain work and made it their own, establishing their own copyright for THEIR work, NOT for the 'original unedited story' - anyone can 'remake it' by doing the work, funding the production, pay all the salaries, do original animations (or make it live action), alter the storyline, distribute, and yes - profit from THEIR work - because it becomes a new ORIGINAL work.

now imagine if the grimm version that disney had used as the bases was removed from the public domain

disney film would still be non fair use derivation (it not a parody, and they are directly profiting by selling it)

Quote:

Your plan is to just grab Disneys movie print of Snow White, slap it on a torrent with ads to your vendors and call it a day.

nope not my plan

Quote:

What we (The actual content producers of the world) are arguing for is an exclusive right to distribute/sell OUR own work - and will accept a limited time frame to do it in even - but the important part is EXCLUSIVE (but limited time)

Your plan is that copyright grants us an 'exclusive' right to do so but our exclusive rights only last as long as it takes to post the work - after that its an automatic free-for-all for anyone who wants to profit from it -

again nope not my plan

Quote:

they don't have to re-work it, comment on it, or do anything at all to it - just post and surround by ads.

again the exact opposite i simply want the re-worked, commented , parody protected.

Quote:

we aren't asking for much - crap, I'd take 2 years of exclusive, backed by full governmental laws and policing.

none of this bullshit DMCA 'I have to personally catch the 100K websites doing it and send a notice politely asking them to stop please, and I have to do it for each link they provide, and I have to do it again tomorrow because they just re-up it'

I want to see a central worldwide reporting system backed by 3 strikes that extends to uploaders, site owners, hosts, ISP's and everyone else involved in the theiving scam pirate world.

again... just for emphasis

fuck you

i don't have a problem with that as long as if the consequence of you sending a false notice to take down fair use (parody, commentary etc) all your copyrights become null and void.

If you lose every copyright the second you make a "mistake" i have no problem with you having that type of power.

if you want to have that power with no consequence when you abuse it well then

fuck you

because guarrenteed it will be abused and copyright holders will simply claim the censorship of taking down fair use was just an "accident"

Serge Litehead · 07-07-2010, 09:41 PM

in the beginning there were vcr's, then there were brothers Grimm, next is Jesus?

06-24-2010, 06:38 PM	#54
Don Pueblo Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 656	i apologize to all of you, i timeshifted into the past and bashed gideon in the head with a shovel. this is the reason he's fucked in the head. i apologize to you all. __________________ Don Pueblo Worlds Best Latin Lover

07-06-2010, 05:38 PM	#62
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Gideongallery is a blithering idiot in case y'all hadn't noticed. He will twist and bend anything to try and feel justified for the FACT that he is nothing more than a thief defending thieves. I've flushed things down the toilet who are more productive to society than gideongallery. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-06-2010, 10:46 PM	#67
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	And not only that...but as I ALREADY showed gideon"can't get my fact straight"gallery in another thread... That fairy tale was already a TRADITIONAL story BEFORE the Grimms ever published it. They didn't even know who originally made it up. Gideongallery. You are without a doubt the dumbest person I've ever encountered in my life. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-07-2010, 09:41 PM	#80
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	in the beginning there were vcr's, then there were brothers Grimm, next is Jesus? __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

07-06-2010, 07:01 PM	#64
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Who bumped this old thread? Oh shit it's NEW? I swear I've seen this before! lolz Gideon, if I went to a friend's party, and nobody liked me, and everything I said was torn apart and laughed at, I would probably stop attending their parties. What makes you keep coming back here exactly? Isn't there another place to spend thousands of hours discussing your ideas among people who have a chance of agreeing with you?

07-07-2010, 03:59 AM	#69
EliteWebmaster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,975	Interesting thread