Hugucinogens

I mean, they didn’t bother you guys.

The guy was just cold, and the gal had a personal moment. Not their fault, that you two little kids were scared of strangers.

Kidding aside, and assuming what you’ve written is neither internet-talk nor standard schizophrenia tendencies, it might be carbon monoxide poisoning. It was a phenomenon, with haunted houses very often just having faulty heaters of some kind, causing hallucinations in the right doses.

A “truly small” creator, would get , I dunno, let’s say 5% of Disney’s marketed sales, after being stolen from, from being known as the guy Disney stole from. Which would be enormously more than if he only had his “truly small” marketing.

A more successful and known creator, who would market himself more broadly on his own, would not be easy to steal from, since it would be quick enough for the stealing to be found out, to dampen Disney sales.

And all this, ignores the paradigm shift in monetisation (Uniquenameosaurus YouTube video), that could enhance this process immensely, and allow artist creativity to flourish even more, without even leaving the diseased economical rules of capitalism.

I’m about 101% sure it’s possible, ±1.1%

Disney wins in that scenario, because they have more resources to spend on getting their media out there.

As… Opposed to now?

If Disney does plagiarize small artists’ work, and becomes known for it, they take a reputation hit, and the artist gets an explosion of exposure, as long as it is provable he made the original story. (Disney making million-dollar budget movies of your OC, isn’t even that bad for you, to be honest, but let’s assume that it doesn’t market the fuck out of your small artist story. In real life, stories are not in competition.)

If Disney doesn’t, then it’s an undeniable positive for worldwide creativity.

The only thing copyright protects, is big companies’ exclusive right to public-consciousness characters.

1. The current system doesn’t protect small writers either. Look at the amount of money plagiarism gets you, with copyright law in effect.

And

2. at the stage where you’re big enough for copyright to effectively protect you, provable publication dates take care of that problem through reputation. If you become known(read: found out) as a plagiarist, you get the boot from the public zeitgeist, never to receive public money again.

Copyright only protects the Mouse’s bottom line, and strangleholds creativity.

I’m 70% sure that the larger truck exists because exceptions have literally been made to the law on purpose due to lobbying, which is why every company pivoted to them.

I’m getting the sense that you didn’t actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they’d also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

And

It’s really important to know that the vast majority of people aren’t going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it’s even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

, are answered during the video, and I don’t see you arguing the points made by him, you’re just straight up stating the opposite.

And your first point,

Right now, a majority of creatives don’t own their IP in the legal sense, and they can’t stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

, is about how the current system doesn’t work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.

“Reasonable control” is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we’re attempting to replace.

Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

The internet makes data protection impossible.

The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of ‘monetisation with someone else’s art’, and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

If artists didn’t have to worry about being compensated enough… Would they still want to have “reasonable control”? Would we still “risk” them being “demotivated”, from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

I think the human drive to create isn’t that neurotic. I think this kind of “demotivation” only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that’s what we’re saying should change.

Hey hey now. Don’t hate the companies themselves. They’re playing the legal game in the exact, only way the rules allow it to be played. If they don’t, the law and the shareholders fuck them up instead.

Edit: I guess tone is hard to convey through text, so let me be clear:

Companies bad.

But also:

Just hate the copyright law itself, directly. Its only reason for existence is so rich fucks get richer, safer, and should be just abolished.

(45 minute video by Uniquenameosaurus, who also has done an incredible series of videos on the practical ethics of media piracy, with a focus on anime as a jumping off point).