[PEN-L:774] Re: Re: Mickey protected!

["William S. Lear" <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, October 30, 1998 at 16:06:04 (-0500) Peter J. Schledorn writes:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, James Devine wrote:
>
>> One point is suggested by the proposed amendment that was dropped: if
>> copyright protection is extended, the people who produced the product
>> should also benefit. After all, it wasn't the _Disney Corporation_ that
>> invented the "Ariel" persona in the movie "Little Mermaid." It was one of
>> their creative staff who I bet gets no residuals at all. (I didn't stick to
>> the Mickey example, because I think that bastard Walt Disney invented the
>> Mouse.)
>
>FWIW, though Disney claimed to have had the original idea, I think Ub
>Iwerks did a lot of the development of the character who eventually became
>Mickey Mouse.  So the rodent probably fits the example, too.

I think the Simpsons had an episode dedicated to this a while back.

What other products, besides cartoons, music, books, etc., would be
protected?  Why, from a progressive standpoint, do we want these
things to enter the public domain sooner rather than later?

I think it's rather easy to see that the principle of public good is
there and worth defending, but what actually is at stake?  A few
cartoons, some music, books that are available in libraries (which are
being defunded, of course)?


Bill