The comments in this forum indicate the complainers didn’t know. Fine. But the intended audience probably don’t care about Your quibbles.
shareOnce again the Intentional Fallacy in art criticism rears its ugly head.
Look it up.
Apparently not. So should we be focusing on how closely the movie adapted the novel?
shareI watched this movie with my 10 year old daughter, it should be pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that it's a teen/YA film. It clearly wasn't written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. They just have fun with the time period and characters of the original works. His descendants lack a sense of humor about it though, since they're threatening to sue Netflix.
shareNetflix did not make this movie for charity, they made it for profit, so you can't blame other people to profit from them.
What should be the issue here is Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, now is 90 years later. I know copyright should be respected, but to a point. After 90 years these people still owns the copyright is ridiculous, they did not create anything, they are just bums living off a died person.
Exactly the point I made in a different thread. I could cure cancer and US law would only grant me exclusive rights for 17 years. Copyright laws have been changed by politicians taking bribe money from the movie and music industries, expanding them to a point where it's gotten ridiculous. Media rightsholders shouldn't retain their copyrights any longer than patentholders have them for an invention - something they created themselves, through their own effort. Why should your great great grandfather's books belong to you nearly a century after he died?
shareWhy should your great great grandfather's company belong to you? Why should your great great grandfather's house belong to you? Why should your great great grandmother's jewels belong to you?
shareInheritance is a poor analogy. Copyrights shouldn't last any longer than a patent, and expire well within the lifetime of the person who wrote, sang, or filmed the work in question (unless they were already old when they did it). Just as with technical innovations it's in the common interest to have media enter the public domain on a reasonable timescale. Letting a family milk the work of one of their ancestors for generations goes considerably beyond that timescale.
There's currently a lawsuit by the descendants of the person who wrote the Birthday Song. You know, the one we all learn when we're two - happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear [insert name here] ... they've decided they want royalties whenever that song is sung in a movie or TV show. Craziness.
I agree that copyright should enter the public domain on a reasonable timescale.
What you propose, which is the lifetime of the person who created it, that's completely unreasonable. And I'm being polite.
According to what you said, you write a book when you're 20 years old, and you live until you're 100 years old, your descendants will see every penny the book made for 80 years. However, you write a book when you're old, and you die before it's published, your descendants won't even see a fucking dime since the copyright expired even before the book was published.
Brilliant, fucking brilliant.
No, you have a fixed term. The same 17 years granted to an inventor let's say. If you die two years later your family can claim those rights for 15 more years.
If I built a faster-than-light engine I wouldn't have exclusive rights to sell it for my entire lifetime. Within twenty years other companies would be able to sell their own versions without cutting me in. It makes no sense to put media in a completely separate category - even more than with inventions, most of the money from books and songs and movies is made within the first few years of their release anyway.
No, you have a fixed term [...] your family can claim those rights
expire well within the lifetime of the person who wrote, sang, or filmed the work in question
17 years is usually well within the lifetime of a content creator - unless they were already old when they created the content. I did think.
Why are you so focused on taking pot shots at me? I think you've gotten what I was saying. A fixed term much less than a single lifetime but transferable during that period (just like a patent). Do you find that idea unreasonable?
What complaining comments are you referring to?
share