Country Squire's Middle Earth Series to be Renamed.

[pappymac]

I think it's from the Hobbit cartoon with Leonard Nemoy narrating. If not, it would be from the Hobbit cartoon.

Thanks.
I'm going to pull out my books and see if I can find a reference to the pipes in Bilbo's house.

 

[jpberg]

Sorry, but what you are describing here is called "a slippery slope". While I readily confess to knowing nothing about this particular situation, I can say that knowingly allowing a copyright infraction sets a precedent that could end up poorly for the owner of the IP rights.

Yes. The owners of intellectual property are obligated protect their property.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s not an homage to the creator, it’s theft, and in this case, lazy theft that has gone on too long.

 

[woodsroad]

Yes. The owners of intellectual property are obligated protect their property.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s not an homage to the creator, it’s theft, and in this case, lazy theft that has gone on too long.

The IP owner allowing an infraction, no matter how inconsequential it may seem to the offending party, is a slippery slope.

 

[jguss]

Sorry, but what you are describing here is called "a slippery slope". While I readily confess to knowing nothing about this particular situation, I can say that knowingly allowing a copyright infraction sets a precedent that could end up poorly for the owner of the IP rights.

Agreed. Rights that aren’t enforced are jeopardized. Think adverse possession in regard to real property, for example.

 

[AJL67]

Just a quote as I've never read the books or watched any of the movies.

"THE TOLKIEN ESTATE APPROVES THE RINGS OF POWER

Christopher Tolkien passed away in 2020. Simon Tolkien is now the head of the Tolkien Estate. The Estate’s approval of Amazon’s production could be that it is (in their opinion) “truer” to Tolkien or because a different family member is now at the helm. Perhaps they decided being involved would put them in a position to help shape the end product. Either way, they have given their blessing to this production — and they are actively involved. They can veto anything they don’t like; which presumably means if the team at Prime Video stray into Silmarillion territory, they’ll get their wrists slapped!"

That little bit of control and piles and piles of Jeff's money.

 

[warren]

I'm guessing many here steal copyrighted material, harming the authors, singers, labels and etc, by freely distributing pirated material, sharing music and such. Some even think that because they paid for the initial download they "own" the song. Doing so is simply theft. But, "everybody does it" seems to permeate parts of out society.

 

[huntertrw]

One copyright to rule them all, One copyright to find them, One copyright to bring them all, and with the lawyers bind them.

 

[trouttimes]

Far far too many lawyers in this world for me. That is part of why everyone is a victim.

 

[Hillcrest]

Will the memes stop now too ?

 

[woodsroad]

Far far too many lawyers in this world for me. That is part of why everyone is a victim.

Not about lawyers. It’s about a fundamental lynchpin of liberty: We are entitled to the fruits of our labor. Not being compensated for your labor is theft.

 

[Hillcrest]

 

[chilllucky]

The IP owner allowing an infraction, no matter how inconsequential it may seem to the offending party, is a slippery slope.

This is intellectually true and the spirit of the law so far as I understand it (barely). The dissonance I have is with the word "owner" as opposed to "creator".

The serious conversations about these issues happen well above my ability to follow so I won't pretend I have an informed or original position. However it abrades my sense of fairness when people who had no part in the creation (be they grandchildren or shareholders) assert the same rights put in place to incentivise and protect creators.

 

[Hillcrest]

Thanks.
I'm going to pull out my books and see if I can find a reference to the pipes in Bilbo's house.

At the end the elves made him two small silver covered pipes with lids that he didn't use and gave to Merry and Pippin. In the movies:
(Thoren)





Two churchwardens in bowl on desk ??

 

[woodsroad]

This is intellectually true and the spirit of the law so far as I understand it (barely). The dissonance I have is with the word "owner" as opposed to "creator".

The serious conversations about these issues happen well above my ability to follow so I won't pretend I have an informed or original position. However it abrades my sense of fairness when people who had no part in the creation (be they grandchildren or shareholders) assert the same rights put in place to incentivise and protect creators.

It’s no different than transferring any other property. It would be fundamentally wrong (and unconstitutional) to seize someone’s wealth and/or property upon their death. It belongs to your heirs and designees.

 

[DesertDan]

I wonder when they are going to send a C&D letter to Led Zepplin?

 

[chilllucky]

It’s no different than transferring any other property. It would be fundamentally wrong (and unconstitutional) to seize someone’s wealth and/or property upon their death. It belongs to your heirs and designees.

Yes, but no. If I leave a house to my heirs or some other corporation, they can't sue other people for having houses that are too similar to the one I left them.

We _started_ this conversation already out of my depth on these complex legal issues, so you've got no real incentive to convince me, but I appreciate the attempt.

I believe in patent protections as outlined by the founders (before disney). Where, when, and how patents, trademarks, and the like became inheritable, un-expiring, comoddities of IP is a lecture I would be interested to listen to, even if I would most likely leave the hall feeling cheated and depressed.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

I believe in patent protections as outlined by the founders (before disney). Where, when, and how patents, trademarks, and the like became inheritable, un-expiring, comoddities of IP is a lecture I would be interested to listen to, even if I would most likely leave the hall feeling cheated and depressed.

The "founders" merely spelled out that there would be some (and not very specific at all) protections - it's been up to Congress since then and not sure what "before Disney" means, but even if you mean whatever the most recent extension was, copyright limitations have changed to be longer several times over the past 200+ years. Patent protections are pretty consistent and still very limited compared to copyright protections. None are "un-expiring" so far as I know.

 

[lraisch]

Yes, but no. If I leave a house to my heirs or some other corporation, they can't sue other people for having houses that are too similar to the one I left them.

We _started_ this conversation already out of my depth on these complex legal issues, so you've got no real incentive to convince me, but I appreciate the attempt.

I believe in patent protections as outlined by the founders (before disney). Where, when, and how patents, trademarks, and the like became inheritable, un-expiring, comoddities of IP is a lecture I would be interested to listen to, even if I would most likely leave the hall feeling cheated and depressed.

As an example, it's just in the last year that the copyright protections on the last of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories have expired. It's now apparently possible for someone to use those names, characters, etc., freely. The Doyle estate had been most assiduous in protecting their IP rights.

 

[fireground_piper]

Yes, but no. If I leave a house to my heirs or some other corporation, they can't sue other people for having houses that are too similar to the one I left them.

We _started_ this conversation already out of my depth on these complex legal issues, so you've got no real incentive to convince me, but I appreciate the attempt.

I believe in patent protections as outlined by the founders (before disney). Where, when, and how patents, trademarks, and the like became inheritable, un-expiring, comoddities of IP is a lecture I would be interested to listen to, even if I would most likely leave the hall feeling cheated and depressed.

The problem with your analogy is you didn't create your house design, you just have a general house. Architectural works actually can be protected if you meet the requirements of protection.

That's the big difference. Apple can't copyright "phones" but they can protect their specific design and technology of their phone as long as it meets the requirements for protection.

 

[woodsroad]

The problem with your analogy is you didn't create your house design, you just have a general house. Architectural works actually can be protected if you meet the requirements of protection.

That's the big difference. Apple can't copyright "phones" but they can protect their specific design and technology of their phone as long as it meets the requirements for protection.

That’s a good bingo.