The same way Disney borrowed heavily from the public domain only to shut the door after themselves and lock it up for decades. We as a people benefit from not having gatekeepers lock up our cultural heritage in the name of fetishing money. We are nearing a point where copyright will be ignored and the gatekeepers left fuming and unable to extract rent anymore.
Trying to see the deleterious social effects of not having free access to Disney IP. Not Gish-galloping you, I just don't think of Disney IP as having high social utility in the grand scheme of things.
I assume you'd have a better case with IP on medicines for example, but I can also see the benefits of, say, Pharma companies being able to turn some profit in order to develop other socially useful therapies...
> allowing Disney to enforce artificial scarcity with threats of state-enforced violence
You might not like Disney stuff, but it's absurd that Winnie the Pooh for example just partially entered the public domain. Tigger is still locked up in a greed vault. You being dismissive of the cultural value is a cold comfort to the daycare that got sued over a Winnie the Pooh mural.
I don't think a daycare should be sued for a Winnie the Pooh mural. But I also don't think a Winnie the Pooh mural has much inherent value anyway, especially to the kids it ostensibly was for. I can think of a million better things for mural-painters and Disney lawyers to do – but I don't think it requires the elimination of IP protections.
Intellectual property monopolies limit access and utilization of ideas and tools to broader society in exchange for privileging a small group worshipped as "the creators".
That sounds like a good argument, but I'm not seeing how protecting a comedian's IP translates to limiting access to ideas and tools... that benefit broader society.
The same thing that protects that comedian's IP, is the same thing that makes the source designs for lithographic masks for semiconductor fabrication some of the most sensitive IP in the world!
Who it is making the claim doesn't matter half as much as what the knock on consequences to jurisprudence at large.
