D&D 5E Can someone please explain to me why there are still no PDFs for 5e core books?

[billd91]

what is the benfit (other then you getting to make a movie or book without oweing something to the owner of the copyriter) of not extending copyright?

If I write a book, and it takes off with TV shows, comics, and toys, why should not my children and childrens' children have a say in what is done with it, and why not let them make money off of Grampa?

why should Micky be open to the public when he is the symbol for a great American company?

Let's consider all of the various alternative takes on Shakespeare that are out there - from annotated versions to manga to Kurosawa. All of those are possible because Shakespeare is public domain. Now, imagine if Shakespeare's works had an infinitely renewable copyright owned by some British megacorporation (or even the crown). How much work did that corporation put into creating Shakespeare's work? None, yet they would own the copyright just as much as Shakespeare would have in his own lifetime. Would they deserve it? Would Shakespeare's descendants?

Copyright is intended to enable a creator to gain exclusive economic benefit from their own creation. That's why, as of 1978, it was already pretty long. But past a certain point, why should the ability to use that creation remain exclusive? Shouldn't second waves be allowed to riff off it in their own creative ways?

Put another way, the Sonny Bono copyright extension raises the power of corporations to control IP - not so much personal creators themselves. Most are unlikely to live long enough to see the effect of the extension - but corporations who buy up the rights sure will. And will again the next time some Hollywood-connected legislator puts up the next copyright extension act just before Steamboat Willy hits public domain.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's consider all of the various alternative takes on Shakespeare that are out there - from annotated versions to manga to Kurosawa. All of those are possible because Shakespeare is public domain. Now, imagine if Shakespeare's works had an infinitely renewable copyright owned by some British megacorporation (or even the crown). How much work did that corporation put into creating Shakespeare's work? None, yet they would own the copyright just as much as Shakespeare would have in his own lifetime. Would they deserve it? Would Shakespeare's descendants?

I guess it depends, maybe something about new uses... I don't think anyone held any copyright on Shakespeare, but maybe they did... after not putting anything new out for a few years though, I don't see it as the same... Micky and Superman, and most of what we are talking about are on going parts of those mega corps... they are owned not by one creater but by the company always bringing new creaters in...

Copyright is intended to enable a creator to gain exclusive economic benefit from their own creation. That's why, as of 1978, it was already pretty long. But past a certain point, why should the ability to use that creation remain exclusive? Shouldn't second waves be allowed to riff off it in their own creative ways?

Once again a middle ground would be nice... taking Micky away from Disney seems so wrong...

Put another way, the Sonny Bono copyright extension raises the power of corporations to control IP - not so much personal creators themselves. Most are unlikely to live long enough to see the effect of the extension - but corporations who buy up the rights sure will. And will again the next time some Hollywood-connected legislator puts up the next copyright extension act just before Steamboat Willy hits public domain.

and what is the harm in steamboat willy (and micky by extension) NEVER hits public domain as long as Disney is still using him and producing? I guess I could understand if they were just sitting on this... but I still don't get it.

 

[billd91]

there has to be a middle ground in there somewhere... Micky Mouse is currently being used by the company that own him... no one owns Sherlock or Frankenstein...

Nobody owns Frankenstein because copyright wasn't extended (admittedly, they have to have been extended a LOONNNGG time). There were no large corporations lobbying to extend copyright to keep them under control at the time.

Of note, Sherlock Holmes was published up to 1927 - only a year before Steamboat Willie. Those late stories are still under copyright. However, older stories are not which seems to put the character in general in the public domain, though the later works are not.

 

[Shasarak]

Why would Disney have to stop using Mickey Mouse if he was public domain?

That does not seem to be a smart idea.

 

[billd91]

and what is the harm in steamboat willy (and micky by extension) NEVER hits public domain as long as Disney is still using him and producing? I guess I could understand if they were just sitting on this... but I still don't get it.

What's the harm? Enabling Superman, Steamboat Willie, and other corporate-owned stories and characters to have functionally infinite copyright means copyright in general is functionally infinite. And that includes copyright of scientific studies and other intellectual property that could do much more work for us if freed. You think people complain about the Sonny Bono extension now? Think about how much complaint there'd be if it were a law that applied just to Mickey Mouse! That'd be some pretty special privilege and would probably be struck down by the SCOTUS under the equal protection clause (or at least should be, I'm making no bets on that given the court's current makeup).

Copyright is meant to be limited term so that the value of the IP can eventually be available to everyone - just so long as the creator gets first crack at it as his or her just reward.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What's the harm? Enabling Superman, Steamboat Willie, and other corporate-owned stories and characters to have functionally infinite copyright means copyright in general is functionally infinite. And that includes copyright of scientific studies and other intellectual property that could do much more work for us if freed. You think people complain about the Sonny Bono extension now? Think about how much complaint there'd be if it were a law that applied just to Mickey Mouse! That'd be some pretty special privilege and would probably be struck down by the SCOTUS under the equal protection clause (or at least should be, I'm making no bets on that given the court's current makeup).

Copyright is meant to be limited term so that the value of the IP can eventually be available to everyone - just so long as the creator gets first crack at it as his or her just reward.

sorry I'm still not seeing what harm any of this causes... not everything has to become public domain, but that doesn't mean nothing ever can...

heck just put a restriction that to extend it past XX years (where XX= a long time) that you have to currently be using the property... aka no sitting on properties... kind of like the wonderwoman thing at DC...

a general use it or lose it...

 

[billd91]

sorry I'm still not seeing what harm any of this causes... not everything has to become public domain, but that doesn't mean nothing ever can...

heck just put a restriction that to extend it past XX years (where XX= a long time) that you have to currently be using the property... aka no sitting on properties... kind of like the wonderwoman thing at DC...

a general use it or lose it...

That already exists - it's called Trademark. And you not only have to use it, you must defend it to keep it. And Mickey, I'm sure, has trademarks up his wazoo as well. Disney can keep using those in perpetuity as long as they use and protect them. That, however, is not the same as protection for a specific work.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

That already exists - it's called Trademark. And you not only have to use it, you must defend it to keep it. And Mickey, I'm sure, has trademarks up his wazoo as well. Disney can keep using those in perpetuity as long as they use and protect them. That, however, is not the same as protection for a specific work.

This is an important point. If Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willy entered the public domain, Disney could still continue to use Mickey Mouse to represent themselves with near exclusivity through trademark law.

But, now other people could create Mickey Mouse stories, or a new take on Steamboat Willy. Disney themselves have a long history of creating derivative works based on public domain stories and characters, and we as a culture are better for it.

So that's the harm. Works under excessively long copyright protection prevent the creation of derivative works that would be of benefit to our society.

 

[Jester David]

the mouse saved ALOT of people there hard work... anyone creative owes Disney a Big THANK YOU.... but I guess that you wont see it that way either...

Not really.
Said creative person would still have been dead, since copyright only expired 50 years after death, but was extended to 75. So it's the creative's great-grandchildren rather than just grandchildren that owe Disney the thank you.

As a creative person... I think my grandkids can do their own creative stuff. If I die at 65, my son will be 34, and if he has kids at the same times as me they'll be 3. 75 years later and my grandkid is 78. There could be a 16-year-old great-great-grandchild born mooching off my creation. They don't know me. They're strangers. Heck, their parents were strangers. And if I live to be even older it could be a great-great-great-grandchild who benefits.
75 years is a ridiculously long time.

 

[Jester David]

there has to be a middle ground in there somewhere... Micky Mouse is currently being used by the company that own him... no one owns Sherlock or Frankenstein...

The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle still likes to have a say in the use of Sherlock Holmes. But they don't own the character anymore, allowing both RDJ and Benedict Cumberbatch to bring him to life in the same period. Which we wouldn't see if a single studio owned the rights.

Once again a middle ground would be nice... taking Micky away from Disney seems so wrong...

They wouldn't be taking it away, they'd just be allowing other people to use the character. In much the same way Disney used Snow White and Cinderella.

After all, the Brothers Grimm published Snow White in 1812, only 125 years prior to Walt.
Amusingly, as Wilhelm Grimm died in 1859, if modern copyright laws were in place, Snow White and the entire Grimm's Fairytales would have only just expired from copyright when Walt Disney began work on Snow White in 1934. But, the stories would likely have been far less widely known.