League of Public Domain Properties: Tom the Dancing Bug on copyright and Disney
Earlier this week, Ruben Bolling's TOM THE DANCING BUG toon let fly with some trenchant commentary on Disney and copyright. Link (Thanks, Cori!)
Earlier this week, Ruben Bolling's TOM THE DANCING BUG toon let fly with some trenchant commentary on Disney and copyright. Link (Thanks, Cori!)
the latest
latest episodes
A friend, on being forwarded this cartoon, commented that the fact that Bolling included Mickey Mouse and has no fear of litigation in doing so proves that the parody and commentary exemption stands! (Unless he is, in fact, unjustly sued.)
Good stuff.
Pretty much everything in Tom the Dancing Bug is hilarious. I'm particular fond of God-Man, myself.
Dear Torrance
Comments were turned off due to irresponsible postings in an annoying volume. I am not sure why your email to Cory bounced, why not try Teresa Nielsen Hayden directly?
Torrence, you might also try Cory's own website
http://craphound.com/
I think there's a link to email Cory from there.
Tom the Dancing Bug is the best. It was the only reason I still picked up the Village Voice and when they stopped running it, I was done with them. Losers!
Tom the Dancing Bug rocks my world. Along with This Modern World, they're the two best comic strips out there.
Did you notice that in the cartoon League of Public Domain Properties is presented by more evolutionary advanced species (humans. well, Pinocchio wanted to be a human, too), as opposed to copyright protectors (lawyers and a mouse)?
It's important to remember in the debate about file downloaders 'stealing intellectual property' that the biggest theft of intellectual property has been the media company's stealing the public domain.
By bribing politicians to extend the copyright period into infinity in twenty year segments, the media companies have destroyed the legal contract between them and the public. That contract was that the public would pay for a certain number of years and then the 'product' would be free. It would have been paid for.
An analogy would be buying an automobile on time payments. You pay $200 a month for 60 months and then the auto belongs to you. The car dealer would just love to extend the number of months that you have to pay them by another 60 months when you have reached the 59th month. But no one would agree that this would be fair.
Nevertheless, the media companies continue to extend the period for which they can collect payments by passing extensions to copyright period. By preventing works to enter the public domain after the legal period of payment that was in effect when the work was created is in effect stealing that work from the public domain.
Since they have extended this copyright period on several occasions when works have been due to enter the public domain, they have established a pattern of criminal behavior and have demonstrated their willingness to prevent works from ever entering the public domain.
Since they have established this pattern of criminal behavior and have committed the greatest theft of artistic property in history, I can come to no other conclusion that all copyright laws are null and void. There is no ethical reason for anyone to restrain themselves from copying and distributing any work of art in any medium anymore, regardless of how new it is, how much it cost to produce, or whether or not the artists will 'suffer' from not receiving royalities.
This seems extreme; but it is nothing compared to the theft of the public domain. Which they did to us, first, before any file sharing. Anything that leads to the destruction of the global media corporations is good for the collected world culture: past, present, and future.
The danger of allowing the continuance of global media corporations isn't so apparent in the music and film areas, because these are easily copied and distributed. It is very apparent for books.
It is getting difficult to find even best-sellers from even thirty years ago. Libraries discard their yellowing and fading copies. Bookstores don't carry old materials. The publishers won't reprint them on paper. And the publishers have deluded themselves into believing that people will pay $10 a title for old titles in digital text file format, the e-Book fantasy.
As a result, the books of the 20th century disappear. Try to find a copy of Thy Neighbor's Wife or War Day anywhere! They're simply gone. Along with most of the fiction from the early decades of the 20th century that was supposed to enter the public domain before it was stolen from us. Future historians will have a great gap in the books of the first half of the 20th century. There will be Hemingway, F.Scott Fitzgerald and nothing else.
You would think that the so-called Greatest Generation would be aware of their disappearance from history due to the theft of the public domain , but as in so many other areas, they remain completely clueless.
The younger people hate and mistrust the media companies. Their 'illegal' file-sharing networks will ensure that their culture will not be lost to future generations.
Glenn @ 1, point out to your friend that "fair use" is not recognized in all countries, and it's constantly under assault in the US. For people who believe everything is commercial, "fair use" is just a euphemism for "free use."
If that is your true opinion, write to the editors. I agree with you personally.
This is good. But not as good as the one where Judge Scalia saves Superman and Dagwood Bumstead from the evil public domain man who is about to force them to perform "Gone With the Wind".
There's also this comic from 10 years ago. Whether this one is pro, anti, or neutral on copyright extensions is debatable.
I can't wait to draw Mickey in bed with a horse!