• seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Heh, more of this shit.

    Remember, the only reason we can still watch the highly influential 1922 vampire movie Nosferatu today is because some people didn’t destroy all their copies despite a court saying they had to.

    DISOBEY DESTRUCTION ORDERS.

    COPY ALL THE THINGS.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      The author in question here was pretty shitty. He wrote his own sequel to called “Fellowship of the King”, and then sued Amazon and the Tolkien estate saying they stole elements from his book. He lost, and the Tolkien estate countersued.

      The guy played stupid games and won stupid prizes.

      • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I read. I don’t have much sympathy for him. He sounds like a jerk.

        IMO preserving the content is more important than honoring him (or, for that matter, humiliating him).

    • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Some older dutch movies were released as rentals to the theaters that had to be returned after they stopped playing the movie. These copies were all destroyed and re-releases on DVD now look worse than what it looked like in movie theatres.

      The good news is that some theatres hung on to some movies.

      • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thank goodness. Have those copies resurfaced and gone into the possession of proper archivists and/or research collections?

        • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t know how many might be still be around, but I know for a couple of movies where they are. I don’t think they have been properly archived and/or converted to digital media yet. I would like to see if there are people in The Netherlands that can do these things and if the current owners of the rolls of film are willing to.

  • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    In my opinion LotR should’ve already entered the public domain but thanks to Disney well have to wait until 2044 for that.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can’t have the already well-off children go without their steady income that they didn’t have to work for…

      • Gal Fawkes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well how else are we supposed to encourage people to be related to people who develop intellectual property? It makes sense from a neponomic standpoint.

        • sqgl@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Believe it or not, some people do work extra hard in order to ensure their descendants have an easy life. I’m not weighing in on whether that is wise or not but it is definitely a thing.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The books go into public domain in 20 years. Now that Christopher Tolkien is out of the way (who tended to block a lot of stuff, for better or worse) , the current heirs want as much out of it as they can.

        20 years might sound like a lot, but that’s about as much time as between the Peter Jackson movies and now.

      • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think an argument could be made to set it to the date of death of the author. I agree with the other guy that it should only apply to commercial works though.

        I also don’t think that the copyright should be transferable. The trading of ideas is an absurd concept to me. But then us humans do a lot of absurd things so I guess it’s just par for the course.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          People have a right to culture. If you grew up with a story, it’s yours now, no matter how dead the author isn’t. Past works are the foundation for everything you can make.

          And if the purpose of copyright is not to encourage new works, burn it to the ground.

          • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s an oversimplification. All works are derivative to some extent. There’s a huge difference between taking inspiration from something, to taking the characters and setting from something. Particularly if you’re intending to make a profit.

            If an author makes something that a large number of people enjoy, why shouldn’t they be able to make money off it for the rest of their life? Why exactly should an individual give up the rights to their creation simply so that someone else can use their characters and their worlds?

            To be clear, I’m talking solely on an individual level. I think the system we have where a corporation can own an idea is very broken. I’m also talking about this from a perspective of the world we currently live in. In an ideal world where money wasn’t the endgame for survival, ideas would flow more freely and nobody would need to care. But that’s not the world we live in.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              You can’t sell something to a million people and still own it.

              Copyright is a gift, from us to them, to encourage new works, for us. Why would that mean some old fart gets to stop people making new stories for the characters they grew up with? They’re our characters, now. We bought them. That’s what the money was for.

              And if thirty years of revenue with zero additional labor required somehow isn’t enough - oh well.

              Can you imagine making your argument for any other industry? Why in the name of god would art be the place where doing real good one time is a ticket to retirement? Not farming, not medicine, not engineering. Homeboy wrote a song once, so he gets to ride the gravy train until he fuckin’ dies.

              • Auli@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Your buying the stories not the ownership of all the ideas.

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Word salad.

                  Again: the explicit purpose of copyright is to provide the public with new works. After a fixed limited time, all works belong in the public domain. If you want copyright to be anything but that, I would rather not do copyright at all.

                  It’s not a right. That name is a lie. It’s a monetary incentive. And once someone’s made their money, that’s that. It’s ours now. The deal worked.

      • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        And for commercial purposes only. If you’re not making money off of it, you should be able to use it however you want.

  • TheMongoose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Should copyright for works that old be expired? Yes!

    In the actual world we live in, was this guy ever going to avoid being sued so hard that his grandchildren will be embarrassed for him? No!

    You’ve got to admire the lemming-like devotion to the legal cliff he threw himself off though. Writing a sequel to not only a copyright work, but one that is still in the cultural zeitgeist thanks to a 20-year old wildly successful series of films? Ballsy. Subsequently suing one of the largest companies in the world and the estate that produced the original works as infringing his copyright?

    Chutzpa, I believe the term is.

    • SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah, this guy didn’t have a leg to stand on. There’s an independently owned cafe opposite sarhole mill (inspiration for “the shire”) on the street JRR Tolkien grew up on called “the hungry hobbit”. It’s been called that since 2005 - before the release of the hobbit film. A production company sued this tiny sandwich shop, sitting on a roundabout 3 miles south of Birmingham for the unauthorised use of the word “hobbit”. That was completely egregious imo. It’s now called “the hungry hobb” - they just took down the last two letters on the sign. I really should grab a sandwich from them one day.

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ballsy? He’s an outright copyright troll and anyone celebrating him here in the comments should read the article…

      He wrote a knockoff book and then tried to claim Tolkien’s characters as his own and sue his estate? Does nobody remember the days of BS software patent trolls trying to claim they invented “the app” or “method for clicking on things with the mouse cursor?” Do we remember how mad we were at those shysters?

      This guy deserves whatever he gets.

    • sqgl@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Speaking of Chutzpah…

      “The Fellowship of the King” title is a combination of the titles of the first book in the LOTR trilogy “The Fellowship of the Ring” and the third book “The Return of the King”.

      “The Two Trees” title is similar to the second book in the LOTR trilogy “The Two Towers”

  • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Look, I agree his works shouldn’t be destroyed, just not monetizable.

    But the dude poked a bear with a sharp stick… Suing the creators of the story/characters you’ve built your content on for copyright infringement? Brilliant move…

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What was this guy thinking? He was clearly violating copyright.

    Is he just soft in the head, or is he up to something us not crazy people can’t see?

  • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Tolkien Estate? What’s that? People profiting off of the work of an author who has been dead for 50 years?

    Copyright law is fucked up.

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I dunno, if I build a house, I can leave it to my family for generations. Indeed, barring something interfering with that ownership, it will be passed along. Maybe they’ll sell it, or take out a loan against it and default, or a disaster could strike, or whatever.

      Why would any other creation be less portable to my heirs?

      Mind you, I’m definitely of the belief that artistic creations like books should eventually go public domain. I’m fine with any number of possible restrictions on that duration. But it is strange that one of the only things that automatically gets removed from a family are things like writing. Ideas, if you want to break it down. We treat them different than other things we create.

      Again, I’m fine with there’s being limits on holding ideas restricted. That’s necessary to prevent loss of such things, that are harder to preserve than something like a piece of jewelry, or a statue, or a house. That’s why patents and copyrights need to expire, but I can’t agree that the limits as they exist are fucked up/bad/wrong.

      Seriously, I’m a published author, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about such things.

      Now, I would love to see the laws change so that any copyright held by a publicly traded company, or that has been sold/abandoned by the actual heirs of the author is shorter than when held by the heirs of the author.

      And, any popular work is going to have the issue of who gets to decide what is and isn’t done to the works before or after public domain. You can end up with something wonderful being shat on by asshats. So it isn’t like copyrights expiring is without drawbacks. When what’s at stake is only keeping the works published and available, that’s a clear cut thing that benefits everyone.

      But adaptations, expansions, “fanfic”? I would definitely prefer someone that at least has some chance of the author’s intent being known than some shitty company looking to milk the work for every possible dime.

      Why shouldn’t authors be able to build generational wealth the way a business can? You’re talking about people profiting off a dead man, but that’s what investments and properties and such are. It’s future generations profiting off a dead person’s work. There’s billionaires out there that are sitting on wealth that was amassed not just decades ago, but sometimes centuries. Why do authors not have that possibility?

      • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        A house exists, in order to remove ownership of that hous you would need to physically expell the family living there. A story is fictional, it does not exist and removing the copy protection from it does not require actively harming the inheritors of the person who wrote it.

        A house is also not so much generational wealth as it is generational ownership. You don’t get active revenue from a single house if ypu are living in it. And generational wealth is pretty fucked up and should not happen.

        Besides if an author really wants to make sure their children are taken care of, teach them to continue the story, the family name will ensure they get more sales than anyone else writing stories in the same universe as the original.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Copyright’s explicit purpose is to encourage new works.

    Any form of “unpublishing” is theft from the public. You wanna say a guy can’t make money on a thing? Great, fine, go nuts. But nothing any human being put effort into deserves to be lost forever.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      JRR wrote four LotR stories.

      Everything else is a fanfiction. Even the Silmarillion. By far the most obnoxious reaction to the show is from “Tolkien purists” who got their entire Tolkien knowledge base from Peter Jackson.

      The show is a perfectly Tolkienish story, despite the gratuitous lack of random singing, it’s just not a good one. Like, okay, you need to compress the timeline for the show, fair enough, just do a good job of that.

      Wrong Durins to fight both the War of the Rings and the Balrog?

      Then don’t tease the fucking Moria Balrog. If you want to use a Balrog, because Balrogs are fucking sweet, there was more than one…

      Honestly, the weirdest part of the show is that they’ll follow a lore deep cut with something that could only possibly fool someone that missed the deep cut, but also doesn’t know or care who Gandalf or Isildur is, so what’s the payoff for the reveal?

      • Compactor9679@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Perfectly” except for all the descriptions Tolkien does on his books vs what Amazon did.

        Descriving elves as one thing and having elves as oposite for the Amazon stories. So no, not a tolkienish stories.

        I understand he didnt write anything that Amazon is doing, but what Amazon did is nothing like what he descrived on the books.

        No wonder the rating is so low and none of the LoR fans liked it.