posible internet censoring proof

[strawberry]

''I cant believe it is not mickey''. unable to find how once disney lost copyright to some company over mickey

I know they promote today's thing but there should be something or I am getting old

[TimFox]

There is a strong belief in intellectual-property legal circles that the US Congress will always pass a new copyright law to extend the period on existing copyrights whenever the copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire.
It has worked so far.
See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act  for a general discussion.
In the last few months, a political dispute between the Disney company and a certain political party has arisen.
See:  https://www.newsweek.com/disney-mickey-mouse-copyright-republican-crosshairs-over-lgbtq-stance-1695142

According to the standard histories, Walt started with another employer, who retained the rights to cartoon characters produced by him.
When they parted ways, he made sure to own the rights to any new character he invented, leading to "Steamboat Willie" in 1928.

[ebastler]

''I cant believe it is not mickey''. unable to find how once disney lost copyright to some company over mickey

How could they "once have lost" their copyright, but then hold it (again?) today? And how would one "lose copyright to a company"? I don't think copyright works that way... What specific incident are you referring to?

I find stories all over the internet about the expiration of the copyright on Mickey Mouse in 2024. Just one of these stories uses the slogan you quote. So if you searched for that slogan, maybe because it was memorable to you, that might just be an unfortunate choice of search term since it does not seem to be in widespread use.

[SiliconWizard]

Mickey Mouse in the public domain? It's like the end of the world. Prepare!

[coppice]

Mickey Mouse in the public domain? It's like the end of the world. Prepare!

Then the world must have ended in some countries, as they didn't all get sucked into the US's corrupt bowing to Disney, and Mickey has long been in the public domain.

[TimFox]

The 1932 movie "Island of Lost Souls" was very perverse, implying miscegenation between species.  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024188/
Charles Laughton was especially perverse in his role as the mad scientist.
When critics and censors complained that the movie was "unnatural", Mr Laughton's long-suffering wife, Elsa Lanchester, replied:  "Of course it's against nature. So's Mickey Mouse!"

[bd139]

There is a strong belief in intellectual-property legal circles that the US Congress will always pass a new copyright law to extend the period on existing copyrights whenever the copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire.
It has worked so far.
See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act  for a general discussion.
In the last few months, a political dispute between the Disney company and a certain political party has arisen.
See:  https://www.newsweek.com/disney-mickey-mouse-copyright-republican-crosshairs-over-lgbtq-stance-1695142

According to the standard histories, Walt started with another employer, who retained the rights to cartoon characters produced by him.
When they parted ways, he made sure to own the rights to any new character he invented, leading to "Steamboat Willie" in 1928.

Wow just wow.

On one hand you have a megacorporation promoting LGBTQ equality, probably because it is good marketing rather than any genuine concern, yet at the same time slinging armies of lawyers into a mouse drawing that is nearly 100 years old. And on the other hand you have a political party promoting restriction of rights and manipulating the aforementioned megacorporation while blurting totally ironically about communist China.

Take a step back and look at yourselves 

As for Internet censorship, I doubt it. I think you just suck at googling.

[Stray Electron]

Mickey Mouse in the public domain? It's like the end of the world. Prepare!

   Central Florida is doomed!

[strawberry]

walt disney sold rights about mickey and ears... to some company when this mickey thing wasnt a thing back in the day and he needed money
these days disney studios found out that some company is using their trademark and disnay lost in court 

they probably censoring all negative on internet to give a chance for next copyright extension. that is my wild guess

[eugene]

Emotionally, I can't handle this and the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard tragedy at the same time.

[Ground_Loop]

Emotionally, I can't handle this and the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard tragedy at the same time.

Reminds me of when the Tanya and Nancy thing was finally winding down to less than 24/7 coverage only to be eclipsed by OJ. It was dark times.

[Zero999]

There is a strong belief in intellectual-property legal circles that the US Congress will always pass a new copyright law to extend the period on existing copyrights whenever the copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire.
It has worked so far.
See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act  for a general discussion.
In the last few months, a political dispute between the Disney company and a certain political party has arisen.
See:  https://www.newsweek.com/disney-mickey-mouse-copyright-republican-crosshairs-over-lgbtq-stance-1695142

According to the standard histories, Walt started with another employer, who retained the rights to cartoon characters produced by him.
When they parted ways, he made sure to own the rights to any new character he invented, leading to "Steamboat Willie" in 1928.

Wow just wow.

On one hand you have a megacorporation promoting LGBTQ equality, probably because it is good marketing rather than any genuine concern, yet at the same time slinging armies of lawyers into a mouse drawing that is nearly 100 years old. And on the other hand you have a political party promoting restriction of rights and manipulating the aforementioned megacorporation while blurting totally ironically about communist China.

Take a step back and look at yourselves 

As for Internet censorship, I doubt it. I think you just suck at googling.

DeSantis' Parental Rights in Education Bill is about prohibiting the teaching of sexually explicit content to children between the ages of 5 to 9. It is not an attack on LGBT. The mainstream media are lying. The law equally applies to heterosexuality. I don't get the outrage. I support LGBT rights, but I also think children between the ages of 5 and 9 are too young for sex education.

The earliest children should be taught sex education is adolescence, so around the age of 12, no earlier. It should consist of biological facts (puberty, pregnancy, STDs), health, contraception, online safety, the law and acceptance and tolerance of LGBT. The political rubbish about gender/queer theory, intersectionality and feminism shouldn't be taught to children as fact, ever. This isn't about censorship, but keeping school apolitical.

Yes, it's true Disney don't care about LGBT. They censor it in material they release in countries with poor LGBT rights. It's pure marketing.

Disney should have lost the copyright to Micky Mouse many years ago. Copyrights should last for no more than 25 years. If you can't think of anything new, then you don't deserve continuing royalties.

[bd139]

I will read the text and confirm. Thanks for the heads up.

As for the rest of your point that sounds reasonable until you’ve lived places where 13 year olds are pushing buggies. My 9 year old is perfectly mature enough to understand the mechanics and does. But I agree mostly.

[AndyBeez]

So is this a 'clover leaf' or a 'mickey mouse' socket - as seen on Mouser?
Is DEADMAU5 just taking the mickey?

[ebastler]

Copyrights should last for no more than 25 years. If you can't think of anything new, then you don't deserve continuing royalties.

That is a rather extreme position. Are you seriously proposing that authors or composers should lose the rights to their works even during their lifetime and quietly watch while others continue to make money off of them?

[Zero999]

Copyrights should last for no more than 25 years. If you can't think of anything new, then you don't deserve continuing royalties.

That is a rather extreme position. Are you seriously proposing that authors or composers should lose the rights to their works even during their lifetime and quietly watch while others continue to make money off of them?

Yes. That applies to patents, which expire within the inventor's lifetime. If you can't continue to be productive, you shouldn't continue to be rewarded. I don't consider that to be an extreme position, but one of common sense. The current situation of tending towards perpetual copyright is an extremist position.

[tszaboo]

Emotionally, I can't handle this and the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard tragedy at the same time.

What tragedy? Did I miss something?

[coppice]

If you can't continue to be productive, you shouldn't continue to be rewarded.

Quite right. Starve the elderly, to make way for the young.