• 61 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

  • I’m assuming they meant “talking to the parent, using less complicated, more mainstream words, even if the meaning is a little wrong as a result”.

    Which in my opinion is an ok approach, even though this specific parent, just by posting here, appears tech- and lgbt- savvy enough to probably know at least some terms.

    Also, they could have just said ‘not trans’ instead, if ‘cis’ would be too advanced.

    Actually scratch that, I get using “straight” as non-lgbt. It is how is very commonly used outside of lgbt circles.

    But not a bad thought on its own. just maybe a bit othering.

  • 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.

    and irrelevant little aside

    Also about this,

    As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.

    Guns give some recourse to poor people, against the rich, because anyone could use a gun.

    Guns allow the rich to equip their personal security teams, with guns.

    Guns are not helping the poor, and neither does copyright.

  • Yeah. It’s a big, painful, complicated, disgusting problem, where law enforcement is a jackhammer, and the crime is a malfunctioning pocketwatch.

    In my opinion, in order to make the situation equally unfair and dangerous for everybody, the law should be unfair and straight up just be biased in favour of the party in most statistical danger and least control (the penetrated party).

    But that’s the “best we can do, given an impossible situation” kind of solution, because the real solution is to deal with society’s problems that cause the situation. Preventative rather than reparative treatment. Giving people what they need to be well, rather than depriving and punishing them as much as possible to keep them obedient.

    And that goes against what our society is built around 🙃

  • 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.